Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT M25

Mr. Archie Hamilton: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his plans for the M25 motorway.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Its completion retains the highest priority in the trunk road programme.

Mr Hamilton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that at the recent inquiry in my constituency into the link between Reigate and Wisley, the greatest criticisms came from people who were worried about atmospheric lead from petrol? The recent Lawther report has recommended a reduction of lead in petrol. Would my hon. and learned Friend like to comment on that?

Mr. Clarke: We are, of course, very concerned about the Lawther report and are considering it anxiously. The Government intend to produce a reaction on behalf of all Government Departments, and it is hoped that that will be available by the summer of this year. Meanwhile, we are considering all our road programmes, and when the decision comes to be made on the Leatherhead interchange, we shall consider the problem of lead pollution and the levels of lead in the atmosphere on those congested urban roads which the M25 is designed to relieve.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the public inquiry into the Swanley Sevcnoaks section of the

M25 took place nearly a year ago but we still have not had the inspector's report?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that the inspector's report is now to hand. However, it is a substantial document about a controversial proposal. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that my right hon. Friends will need some time to consider it before they can come up with the right conclusions.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is full weight being given to the views of such organisations as the Friends of Epping Forest regarding the route in that part of the country?

Mr. Clarke: We have always given the fullest consideration to the views of that organisation, because it is always difficult when a road programme encroaches on an area such as Epping Forest. Of course, parliamentary approval was specifically needed for that part of the route. I hope that we shall continue to treat the forest with the greatest sensitivity when dealing with road problems near it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot call every hon. Member whose constituency is affected by the road.

British Railways

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to meet the chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends meeting the chairman of British Railways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to meet Sir Peter Parker.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): I plan to meet him soon.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, what will he say to him about the recent 20 per cent. pay settlement for British Railways employees, which was claimed to be


a major commitment to change, not least in regard to productivity, upon which the future of British Railways depends? What is my right hon. Friend's view about productivity in British Railways in view of the recent wage settlement.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that productivity is basic to the whole question. What has been offered is a basic increase of 16 per cent., and 4 per cent. once—and only once—productivity improvements have been achieved. Such productivity improvements must be achieved because it simply cannot be a question of loading further fare increases on to the commuters.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Shepherd: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Railways, will he discuss the subject of further railway electrification? Does not he agree that it is vital that there should be a continuous programme of investment so that the United Kingdom traction industry can maintain its position in the United Kingdom market as well as develop its position in the wider and more important overseas markets? Will he encourage British Railways in that respect?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, we shall try to give British Railways as much encouragment as we can. A report of a joint working party between British Railways and the Department will become available later this year. Yesterday, I met the Railway Industry Association. We shall bear in mind the importance of exports in any decision that we make.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that more than 90 per cent. of the freight entering and leaving Cornwall is china clay? Can he give an assurance that the application which is now being made jointly by British Railways and the companies concerned for financial assistance for new rolling stock will be given sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I can give an assurance to my hon. Friend that we shall give the application every consideration. Clearly, it is part of our policy to try to get as much freight of that kind

as we conceivably can on to the railways.

Mr. Townsend: When the Minister meets the chairman of British Railways will he raise with him British Railways' support for the pressure group " Transport 2000 " which is campaigning against the roads programme decided by this Parliament? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate that taxpayers' money should be used in this way?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend tempts me into a general essay on the question of pressure groups in transport. I sometimes wish that the common interests of more groups were recognised but I am sure that the chairman of British Railways will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us remember the pledge that he gave to the House that there would be not cuts in rural transport while he was Secretary of State? Will he renew that pledge today?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I am not prepared to see any substantial cuts in the passenger network. I have made that clear in this House and in a letter to the chairman of British Railways. No Minister of Transport has ever said that there would be no closures of any kind, but I wish to make it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to see wholesale closures of local services. Our position is exactly the same as the position of the previous Government, which is that there will be no further round of Beeching cuts. Opposition Members should accept that assurance and not look for mischief where there is none.

Mr. Bagier: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Peter Parker says in the annual report of British Railways published today, that, in spite of the operating surplus achieved by British Railways, unless the stringent cash limits are lifted his industry will not, in the long term, be able to provide the kind of service provided by railways in Europe? What action is the Secretary of State taking to lift those cash limits?

Mr. Fowler: We hope that the chairman of British Railways will be able to manage the railways within the external


finance limits. I have had talks with him and he has given me assurance that it will be possible to operate within those limits. The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider in detail what the chairman of British Railways said.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the annual report of British Railways published today indicates that—[HON. MEMBERS: " Reading ".] Of course I am reading.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Though that confession is an admission of guilt, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) must at least look as though he is not reading his question.

Mr. Dunn: In the annual report of British Railways for 1979 it is made quite clear that a deterioration in rail services took place in 1979 compared with 1978. As most of the decline in service seems to have taken place on the Dartford loop line, will my right hon. Friend express urgent concern to the chairman of British Railways, when he next meets him, about the level of service provided in the South-East area?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure that all the late arrivals can be affecting my hon. Friend's constituency but I shall certainly take up the question of the quality of service with the chairman of British Railways when I next meet him.

Mr. Geraint Howells: In view of what the Secretary of State has just said about railway closures, will he give an assurance to the people of Wales that no further lines will be closed in the Principality during the next five years?

Mr. Fowler: I can certainly give an assurance that there is absolutely nothing in front of me at the moment proposing that any lines in Wales should be closed. Nor, may I add, is there any report in the Ministry of Transport—as was alleged by one newspaper recently—saying that further lines should be closed. It is all a myth and I ask the House to accept my assurance on that.

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British railways the extent to which the cash limits which he has set for British Railways have led to British Railways replacing their assets more slowly than any other railway service in Europe at a time when

there is a big increase in passenger mileage and to British Railways having to turn away £10 million to £15 million worth of profitable freight traffic due to the lack of locomotive power?

Mr. Fowler: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the PSO grant for 1980–81 was reduced by £22 million of which £13 million was decided on by the previous Government? Investment in British Railways is being maintained at exactly the level decided upon by the previous Government. As for freight locomotives, permission was given for 25 such locomotives to be built though 16 only were built. That is not a matter for Government, it is a matter for British Railways.

British Rail (Financial Objectives)

Mr. Trippier: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to make a further statement on the financial objectives for British Rail.

Mr. Fowler: I announced financial objectives and interim financial targets for the Railways Board's freight and Inter-City businesses on 17 March. Work is proceeding on financial objectives for the board's other commercial businesses.

Mr. Trippier: Will the Secretary of State say what the position is on British Railways freight operations? Will those operations cover their costs in future?

Mr. Fowler: It is the position of the Government—as it was that of the previous Labour Government—that we want to see British Railways' freight business running commercially and covering its costs. That is one of the reasons why we have set the financial objectives. Clearly, the annual report of British Railways is not encouraging in that respect. However, our aim remains as I have stated.

Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that the too rigid application of cash limits to the railway industry is causing a rapid deterioration in rail services throughout the country? For instance, on the London to Birmingham service—starting with the May 1980 timetable—there will be a 10-minute slow down in services? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that he is the first Minister of Transport for over 30 years


to move Birmingham further away from London, in rail terms?

Mr. Fowler: I ask the hon. Gentleman also to study the reality of the situation and refer him to what I have just said to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). The position is, of course, that British Railways have had to make economies in line with the Government's general programme. But. if the hon. Gentleman consults the chairman of British Railways he will not find that British Railways have been treated in any way unfairly in that programme.

Mr. Higgins: Given the general concern about financial objectives, I believe that the House will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement that the 4 per cent. payment for productivity will not be made until productivity has increased. Can my right hon. Friend say how that productivity is to be measured?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that the chairman of British Railways is negotiating on this issue with the trade unions. Sir Peter Parker has made it absolutely clear that the productivity payment will not be made until an agreement has been signed.

Mr. Dalyell: May I press the Secretary of State further on the question asked by my hon. Friend for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier)? Is it not a fact that comparative studies of British Railways and European railways are extremely favourable to British Railways? Is it not further a fact that, if British Railways had anything like the amount of money that is poured into their railway systems by the Governments of France and Germany, the problems of British Railways would be greatly eased? Does not productivity in British Railways stand excellent comparison with our much-vaunted European counterparts?

Mr. Fowler: It is not realistic now, nor was it realistic a few years ago, to talk in those terms. It is true—and I pay tribute to British Railways—that compared with other European railway systems, our system is cost-effective. There is no question about it. However, I do not think that it follows from that that we should continue to pour more money into British Railways. What we surely need is a balance between the

passenger on the one hand and the taxpayer on the other. I believe that we have achieved that.

British Railways Board (Subsidiary Businesses)

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the results of the joint examination by his Department and the British Railways Board about the setting up of a holding company for its subsidiary businesses.

Mr. Moate: asked the Minister when he expects to announce his proposals for certain British Railways subsidiaries.

Mr. Fowler: I expect to receive the results within the next month and shall make an announcement as soon after that as possible.

Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the holding company proposal is fiercely resisted both by British Railways and the railway trade unions since that proposal will deprive them of the finance that is urgently needed for British Railways' passenger services? Is this not another example of a Tory Government bowing to private enterprise?

Mr. Fowler: It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that this Conservative Government are in favour of private enterprise. May I say to him that there is no difference in objectives between what I am doing and what the chairman of British Railways wishes to do. The chairman of British Railways wants private investment in the subsidiary companies. We are now disscusing the method. My mind is not closed on the method, but on the objective I remain absolutely firm.

Mr. Moate: Has my right hon. Friend seen the figures which indicate that the 29 hotels of British Railways produced a profit of £328,000, which will not do very much to help their investment programme? Does he agree that if there is true concern about the expansion of the subsidiary companies and employment in them, there will be a wish to see them separated from the public sector to allow new investment to come in and to allow the expansion to take place that has been constrained under successive Governments in the past?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Last year the hotels made a surplus of £328,000 on a turnover of £38 million. That is the sort of performance that we are seeking to improve. I believe that the opportunity to grow free from the restraint of the public sector is good for those organisations and will be good for the creation of jobs within them.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that if finance from the subsidiaries is not available for the capital funding of British Railways the taxpayer, about whom he is always mouthing concern, will have to find the capital? To demonstrate that, will the right hon. Gentleman quote the equivalent figures for the British Rail Property Board?

Mr. Fowler: The majority of the money that goes to British Railways from its property interests comes not from non-operational property but operational property. We are seeking to get private investment into the non-operational property side of British Railways. We are not saying that British Rail should not have a stake in the company—clearly it should. The hon. Gentleman's fears are regrettably misplaced.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend make a genuine attempt to point out to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and others the reality that Sir Peter Parker's plans would in all probability mean more and not less investment in the subsidiaries, and that that would mean more jobs and more secure jobs? Will he go on from that to discuss with the Chairman the financial relationship between British Railways and Her Majesty's Government in the light of the board's current views? When he has done that, will he make a statement to the House?

Mr. Fowler: I shall try to achieve all that my hon. Friend asks of me. I emphasise that we genuinely believe that by giving the subsidiary companies greater freedom, which not only the Government but British Railways want to see for them, we shall be acting in the interests of those who work for the subsidiary companies and for employment generally.

Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise that the profits both from hotels and shipping has increased from £2 million in 1974 to about £14 million now, despite difficult circumstances. Will the

Minister make it clear to the House whether private equity capital will have the same voting value in the determination of commercial decisions as those shares held by the British Railways Board?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, that would be the aim. I shall be making a further announcement. It is clear that the details of the scheme are now under consideration. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until that consideration has been completed. After the initial consideration we shall be talking to all the interests, including the trade unions.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Minister for Transport if the studies at present being carried out by Sir Alec Cairncross include any into the benefits that Great Britain might derive from a Channel tunnel.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of Sir Alec Cairncross on the Channel tunnel.

Mr. Fowler: Sir Alec Cairncross will be advising me on the broad economic aspects of any Channel link proposal. I am discussing with him what work he should undertake following my statement in the House of 19 March.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Will that remit and that study include the possible commitment of private funds? Will it include an examination of the possibility of the commitment of funds from the EEC for this purpose?

Mr. Fowler: The answer to both of my hon. Friend's questions is " Yes ". We have made it clear that it is basic to the scheme that it must be financed by private risk capital. As for EEC money, we welcome the initiative of the Commission in proposing infrastructure aid. Clearly the tunnel would be a chief candidate for that form of aid. At present the infrastructure aid is merely a proposal.

Mr. Adley: In the light of current discussions on the United Kingdom contribution to the EEC budget, will my right hon. Friend consider an offer of funds from the Commission as a proper, sensible


and relevant factor to offset the current imbalance?

Mr. Fowler: The EEC budget is a different issue. It is no part of the specific negotiations. It is the wrong time scale for immediate help. It is also wrong in terms of the amount that is under consideration. However, if an infrastructure programme comes from the EEC there is no question but that the Channel tunnel could become a candidate, and a good candidate, for that aid.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Minister ask Sir Alec Cairncross or someone to consider the severe dangers of terrorist activity if there were a tunnel? Is he aware that there would be nothing to stop bombs from being put on to the trains? No one seems to be able to decide what would be the result. Surely someone must consider this issue.

Mr. Fowler: A characteristic of almost every transport system is that it is subject to some form of sabotage. The security aspects will concern the two Governments, among other things.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Minister ask Sir Alec Cairncross carefully to consider the industrial development implications of establishing the Channel tunnel? Does he accept that if there are to be any benefits from the creation of the Channel tunnel they might not be spread equally within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Fowler: The effect of a Channel tunnel would be generally beneficial to the United Kingdom. We shall take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir Ronald Bell: Will the studies take into account the serious general economic disadvantage to Britain of this project?

Mr. Fowler: I do not think that there is a serious economic disadvantage in the Channel tunnel. It is one issue on which there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House. It is felt that it makes a great deal of sense to go ahead with it.

Cyclists (Road Safety)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister of Transport what action is being taken to improve road safety for cyclists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We give advice and encouragement to local authorities on

the provision of better and safer facilities for cyclists. We shall seek to improve machine safety, particularly braking. We shall continue to encourage cyclists to make themselves more conspicuous and other road users to treat cyclists with more care and consideration. We commend RoSPA's national cycling proficiency scheme, which last year trained 300,000 children between the ages of 9–14.

Mr. Dormand: In spite of those facts, is not the Minister being rather complacent about this important issue in view of the great increase in the number of cyclists, which is likely further to increase because of present circumstances? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider the introduction of a massive publicity scheme on do's and don'ts for cyclists? Will he consider including in that campaign the need to make car drivers more aware of the existence of cyclists? Is he satisfied with the accuracy of the present cycling accident statistics?

Mr. Clarke: We are not complacent. The hon. Gentleman is right to observe that, with the steady increase in cycling—which on the whole we welcome—there is a tendency for the number of accidents to increase. I am satisfied with the accuracy of the statistics that we have, but my colleagues and I will always consider ways of improving them. There is scope for publicity, apart from the other features that I have described. I agree that publicity must be aimed at cyclists themselves, especially children, and to other road users, including motorists, to make them more aware of cyclists. Many accidents are not the fault of the cyclist.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. and learned Friend continue to emphasise that there are two crucial safety factors, namely, that cyclists should be seen and, if possible, separated from other road traffic? Does he agree that many cyclists now seem to be using fewer lights than some years ago, and that that is one of the reasons why there are more accidents?

Mr. Clarke: The problem of lighting on cycles is largely one of enforcement. Cyclists should be seen, and we do everything that we can to encourage the wearing of conspicuous clothing by cyclists. The separation of cyclists from the main


traffic is a desirable aim wherever possible. We give considerable help to local authorities to bring forward schemes to try to segregate cyclists from other traffic.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister consider the Swedish and Swiss experiment of banning children under the age of 5 from cycling on public roads? Is he aware that the experiment has had a phenomenal success in reducing the casualty rate for young children? May I urge him to consider it, and to do so rather more quickly than his consideration of introducing provisions to increase motor cycle safety?

Mr. Clarke: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, now that it has been brought to my attention. We must weigh carefully the need for a ban on any use of the roads. Most children under the age of 5 should not be on a bicycle on any public highway that has a normal amount of traffic use. I shall deal on another occasion with the allegation that we are being slow on motor cycle safety. We are near to producing our proposals.

Mr. Forman: Due to the rather disappointing progress throughout the nation that has been made in the provision of cycle tracks by local authorities, will my hon. and learned Friend consider the possibility of making it a legislative requirement that local authorities should provide cycle tracks for reasons of safety?

Mr. Clarke: We are limited by finance and sometimes by the physical geography of particular towns. We give financial grants to local authorities which introduce experimental schemes. There are some interesting schemes at Peterborough and Middlesbrough, and four or five other schemes are on the way. Certain towns are easier to adapt for the use of cyclists than others. We must face up to some of the practical problems.

M63 (Stockport)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about extension to the M63 in Stockport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Construction of the M63 Stockport east/west bypass between Cheadle Heath and Portwood is

under way and is proceeding satisfactorily.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that there have been one or two unfortunate accidents as the result of the contractor's activities along that section? Will he confirm that my constituents in the Cheadle Heath area have made a considerable number of complaints about the contractor's behaviour? Will he ensure that no more accidents take place and that there is better liaison between the contractor, his Department, the road construction unit and local residents in order that any inconvenience may be minimised?

Mr. Clarke: The construction of any major road is bound to lead to some disruption. Although everything possible is done to avoid the possibility of accidents, occasionally they occur. There is a liaison officer on the project who is meant to handle individual complaints. I shall follow up any complaints that are passed on to me by the hon. Gentleman or by any hon. Member. We are following up every complaint that we hear about. I am led to believe that arrangements between the engineers, the liaison officer, the RCU and the local community will improve.

Mr. McNally: Perhaps the Minister did not hear Monday's debate on the North-West—in which case he should read it. Is he aware that the completion of this road is crucial to the economic and industrial future of the whole of south Manchester? Does not he accept that his Department has prevaricated about the future of the M63? Will he assure us that he is not losing some serious debates in Cabinet about its future completion?

Mr. Clarke: We are not prevaricating about that stretch, but building it. Indeed, that is what has given rise to complaints in Stockport. The extension from Portwood to Denton is planned, and there is no doubt that it will go ahead. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the arrival of the White Paper for exact details of its timing. In addition, we have just announced the preferred route for the remainder of the road. The motorway box round Manchester remains one of our highest priorities and should not be delayed by any financial constraint.

Enterprise Zones (Road and Rail Systems)

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Transport what studies his Department is making of the road and rail system aspects of the proposed enterprise zones.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The transport aspects of the enterprise zones are being considered in relation to particular sites as part of the consultations now in progress with local authority and other interests.

Mr. Lee: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the availability of good communications into the enterprise zones is a vital ingredient if those zones are to be the success that Conservative Members wish them to be?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are paying particular regard to the problems of access to possible sites. We are, therefore, going through the present short-list of possible sites. If there is no proper access to motorways, railways and markets it will inhibit the success of those zones. We all hope that these enterprise zones will make a valuable contribution to the boosting of small businesses.

Mr. Dubs: Who is expected to pay for the cost of access—central Government or local authorities?

Mr. Clarke: In choosing sites we are looking at existing access. We hope to designate those sites that are best placed to give access to the markets Where improvement is required local authorities will probably have to provide it, but we shall be particularly sympathetic to requests from local authorities for grant assistance, when they improve access to those zones.

Mr. Eastham: Does not the Minister agree that it is essential, when planning enterprise zones in Manchester, to bear in mind not only road and rail links, but the fact that the Manchester ship canal and the port of Manchester are also important factors? What proposals does he have in mind that will be in time to assist that industry?

Mr. Clarke: The extension of the M602 to Salford is probably the most important proposal under consideration,

and we are about to go ahead with its construction.

European Community (Council of Transport Ministers)

Mr. John Evans: asked the Minister of Transport when he last met his European Economic Community colleagues; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: At the December Transport Council, which I attended, agreement was reached on all six inland transport matters under consideration. Full details of the matters discussed are contained in my reply of 10 December 1979 to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn). The most significant item from the United Kingdom point of view was an agreement to increase by 20 per cent. the Community quota on road haulage permits which marked a further step towards the liberalisation that I have always sought.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Has he put forward any projects that will take advantage of increased EEC expenditure on infrastructure projects? Will he bear in mind that any infrastructure projects that are financed by the EEC should be carried out in the assisted areas?

Mr. Fowler: As I made clear earlier, the proposals on infrastructure policy are still under discussion. We hope that they will be discussed at the next council meeting in June. I shall certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Porter: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will seek a commitment from his European colleagues that there will be a specific infrastructure fund? At the moment any fund that might come from Europe will come out of the social and regional fund. Is he aware that this disturbs me and a number of my colleagues who have recently been in Europe?

Mr. Fowler: We certainly favour constructive discussion on all those points. We welcome the Commission's Green Paper. We shall consult interested parties and do what we can to get a scheme that is in this country's interests.

Mr. Anderson: Has there been any discussion about the implications of oil


price increases for the Nine and for public transport in the Nine, particularly their effect on rail electrification?

Mr. Fowler: That specific question has not yet been raised, but I expect that it will be one of the subjects under discussion either at the Council meeting or during meetings with European Ministers of Transport during the next 12 months.

Mr. Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend had any chance to talk with his colleagues about comparable productivity of the various European railway networks? Would it not be helpful if we could understand why some of our friends in the Common Market have a much higher degree of productivity in the railways than we do?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend has made an important point about productivity. There are always dangers in European comparisons and that is why I warn the House against making too many superficial statements, on the European example, to the effect that more support should be given to British Railways.

Motorway Maintenance

Mr Iain Mills: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the present safety measures operating on motorways during maintenance work involving contra-flow systems.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am as satisfied as anyone can be that safety measures at motorway repair sites strike a reasonable balance between keeping traffic moving safely while completing essential repairs quickly and economically.

Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply, but is he aware that there is great concern, particularly in the Midlands, where tragic accidents have recently taken place on the M5 and M6 as a result of cross-overs in contra-flow situations? Is he further aware that several local private enterprise companies are considering developing innovations which may help that problem? Will he at least consider those innovations?

Mr. Clarke: I know of one bad accident in particular, and there have been several others. Unfortunately the figures for accidents rise slightly when such repairs are carried out. However,

the motorways remain safer than the road network as a whole. The contraflow system has been considerably improved over the past two or three years. We are always happy to look at any suggested innovations, particularly those that will improve the safety of those passing such sites.

Mr. Neale: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that considerable inconvenience was caused to holidaymakers over Easter where the M5 passes near to Taunton because the road is under repair and the flow of traffic was restricted to one lane in one direction, and two lanes in the other? Will he ensure that the four lanes capable of carrying traffic and the hard shoulder are put to use at peak times during the coming statutory holiday periods?

Mr. Clarke: I saw the considerable traffic jams that occurred on that stretch of road. As much carriageway as possible was kept in use. I am afraid that there is bound to be some delay when major structural repairs are carried out on motorways. We are anxious to complete the work at Taunton by June so that the worst inconvenience will not occur during the height of the holiday period.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that often, following the completion of maintenance work on motorways, contra-flow systems remain in operation? Is he further aware that other obstructions are put in the motorists' way? Will he undertake to examine how long such systems remain and whether the length of time can be shortened?

Mr. Clarke: Whenever I get reports on such delays, I try to follow them up. Obviously we do not want a contra-flow system in operation for longer than is necessary. Our policy is that there should not be any unnecessary delay. It is not as simple as it is sometimes thought to take the whole thing away and then put it back to avoid particularly congested periods.

M4 (Warning Lights)

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to install a modern motorway warning light system on the M4 between Chiswick and Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: This length of motorway signalling system is under consideration for renewal but no firm decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed with that reply? I hope he will agree that this is a most important section of the strategic road network. In the interests of the prosperity of the country, will he not agree to look at this matter with considerable speed?

Mr. Clarke: It is certainly important and it is the oldest section of warning light system in the country. It is still functioning quite well, but it will need replacing at some stage, and integrating into the national network. We have it under consideration, and I have no doubt that over the next two or three years a contract will be placed for its renewal with up-to-date equipment.

Type Approval Regulations

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with Leyland Vehicles Limited concerning type approval regulations.

Mr. Fowler: Officials of my Department are in discussion with members of the company on this and other related matters.

Mr. Atkins: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement about taking action to improve or bring into existence type approval regulations for commercial vehicles?

Mr. Fowler: We are discussing the possibility of a scheme that is similar to those applied in Europe for national approval for commercial vehicles. We expect a decision to be arrived at shortly and then we shall consult industry. The short answer to my hon. Friend is " very shortly."

Heavy Lorries

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport what consideration he has given to varying the top speed at which lorries may be driven on motorways.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have no change immediately in mind, but we have submitted a memorandum on lorry speed

limits to the committee of inquiry under Sir Arthur Armitage. This memorandum, which will be published shortly, puts forward possibilities for reductions in the limits applying on motorways to certain categories of lorry-trailer combinations.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I welcome what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. Is he aware that there are no fewer than three different speed limits for commercial vehicles on motorways? As such a large number of lorries seem to flout these speed limits, is there not a case for introducing a single speed limit, strictly enforced, or for governing lorry engines down to the relevant speed limit as set out in the statute?

Mr. Clarke: I have no doubt that everybody responsible for the management of road transport is aware of the different speed limits which are calculated on the size of the vehicle. I do not think that there is any case for altering the present system to the extent suggested by my hon. Friend. Enforcement is a matter, and no doubt a problem, for the police and the Home Secretary.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that when these heavy lorries drive faster and faster on motorways there is greater danger in rain or wet conditions? Is he aware that these lorries spray water so that it resembles fog, making conditions on the motorway very dangerous? Will he do anything about this?

Mr. Clarke: There is a great deal of research being done into ways of reducing lorry spray, but I am afraid that all the technical advice that I have received continues to say that the perfect solution has not yet been found. I assure the hon. Member that we shall make all the necessary changes to regulations once we have found the answer to a particularly worrying problem.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the problem of enforcing speed limits on lorries from the Continent, particularly those using the A28 and the A2? Will he ensure that the police are able to apprehend and prosecute them before they leave the country?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure that the problems are quite as grave as that. The police attempt to enforce the limits. We always look into complaints that foreign lorries are somehow exempted from


the speed limits, compared with our national lorries. If we can do anything to tighten up the procedure to ensure that a German driver obeys the law just as much as a British driver, we shall do so.

Mr. Myles: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Armitage committee on heavy lorries.

Mr. Snape: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Armitage inquiry on heavy lorries.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of the Armitage inquiry on heavy lorries.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sir Arthur Armitage and his assessors are now considering the written and oral evidence presented to the inquiry. I understand that Sir Arthur hopes to submit his report by the autumn.

Mr. Myles: In considering that report will my hon. and learned Friend pay due attention to the impact of heavy lorries on the A95—the road which feeds the whisky to the A9?

Mr. Clarke: All the road maps in my Department stop at the Scottish border. North of that border the responsibility is that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure my hon. Friend that the reason for having inquiries is that we are concerned about the impact of heavy lorries on the environment generally. I am sure that the problem is not confined to England, but is just as serious in Scotland.

Mr. Snape: Will the Minister make it clear to Sir Arthur Armitage that many of us feel that the road haulage industry enjoys an unfair advantage over its major competitors because working hours laid down by the EEC are normally flouted in the industry and also because log books provided by lorry drivers are regarded as a joke. If the Minister is aware of this, will he do something about it?

Mr. Clarke: Our policy is to ensure that there is no unfair advantage enjoyed by any mode of transport dealing in freight. We want to see them on an

equal footing as far as possible, so that they can compete fairly for the traffic. I agree that the log book is easily abused, and that is why it is a good thing that we finally got round to introducing tachographs. The last Government sadly failed to introduce these for many years.

Mr. Moate: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a matter of the utmost environmental importance? Will he consider the suggestion that, before any Government decision is taken, on maximum lorry weights, this matter should be discussed fully by the House of Commons?

Mr. Clarke: Without a doubt. For that reason the Government have reserved their position in the EEC. We have entered into no formal consultation with the EEC about its proposals, and we have no intention of moving on this subject until we have had time to consider Sir Arthur's report, and the House has had time to consider it. Although we are not responsible for the business of the House, I would expect that the House would debate this matter once the report is to hand.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister accept that no committee on heavy lorries will make any impact at all on the lives of people living on heavily-trafficked urban roads which are used by juggernauts which have nowhere else to go? Therefore, will he go ahead and build the western bypass for the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, thus relieving the misery of many thousands of my constituents?

Mr. Clarke: One of the main priorities in the roads programme, which will be set out in the White Paper that we are about to produce, is to get heavy traffic out of residential areas and away from people, particularly in areas where there is no alternative route at present. I am aware of local pressure for the Newcastle western bypass, but I must ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper in order to get up-to-date news of where this project stands in the programme.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Armitage committee to the environmental effect of heavy lorries on roads in rural areas? I have in mind particularly the effect on buildings and on the atmosphere. One


specific example is the A350 in my constituency where the buildings of Bland-ford and other villages along that road are seriously affected by the level of heavy road traffic at present, and would be badly damaged by any increase in heavy vehicle size.

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that Sir Arthur and his colleagues have been left in any doubt about feelings in many parts of the country over the impact of the heavy lorry on rural areas where roads go through villages. My Department has submitted a great deal of evidence to Sir Arthur on this aspect of the problem, along with many others. All the evidence that we have submitted to the inquiry will be published and made available to the House and to the general public.

Mr. Cryer: Should not the Department of Transport have submitted to the Armitage inquiry a very heavily weighted view in favour of the transfer of freight from road to rail? Is it not in the country's longer-term interests, because of the increasing price of fuel, to realise the advantages of rail as opposed to road transport, and move inevitably in that direction in order to save fuel in the future?

Mr. Clarke: All attempts at direction of traffic from one mode of transport to another are completely doomed, and no Government have ever found any way of putting that into practice. We use the arrangements of section 8 grants to those customers of the railways who need some assistance in putting in facilities for rail transport where they can demonstrate some environmental advantage by doing so. The present pattern of oil prices will improve the competitive climate in favour of the railways over the next few years. This means that the railways will need to organise their freight business in such a way that they are in a position to take advantage of that and attract customers on to the tracks.

British Railways (Overseas Work)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to British Railways not to tender for overseas consultancy work or the supply of rolling stock or other equipment

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that I very much welcome that answer? Will he agree that British Rail could do a lot of valuable work in Third world countries, both in the form of consultancy and by supplying equipment and rolling stock?

Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Member on his impromtu supplementary question. I agree entirely with what he said. I have just come back from leading a small delegation to China, and one of the results of that will be that British Rail and its overseas arm, Transmark will have the opportunity to go to China and bid for important electrification work there. This kind of work is important, not just to British Rail, but to the whole of the rail industry, much of which is in the private sector.

Mr. Waller: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Sir Peter Parker on the great initiative that he and his colleagues in British Rail have shown in going out into the world and selling the enterprise that exists in this country?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir, I shall certainly do so. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that the House would also wish to pay tribute to the real efforts and real achievements of the private railway industry. Those have also been substantial.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Manpower

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the Government's policy of reducing the number of civil servants.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department, (Mr. Paul Channon): No, Sir. But we have made a reasonable start.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that, in spite of all the publicity and ballyhoo about this populist policy, there has been a reduction of only 4 per cent. in the number of civil servants? Will he confirm that many of those who have gone are highly qualified specialists, some of them expensively trained by the Government, and that there have been no reductions in the higher echelons of the administrative hierarchy?

Mr. Channon: I am glad to tell the House that the numbers in the Civil Service have fallen to 705,100, a reduction of over 27,000 since we came to office. It is approximately of the order that the hon. Gentleman stated. I do not think that such an achievement is too bad for the first 10 months. We are pressing ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that there has yet been a sufficient reduction, proportionately, in the higher structure of the administrative Civil Service. I am looking at that matter.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members will be satisfied that the trend is downwards rather than upwards? It was upwards under the previous Government. Is he further aware that we are especially pleased about progress in the Department of the Environment, where staff has already been reduced by 7·4 per cent.?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, I agree, set a fine example. Figures are getting down to the levels of the last Conservative Government. I hope that by this time next year we shall have done even better.

Mr. Straw: Will the Minister say whether the report in the press that the Government are planning to cut the Civil Service by a further 70,000 is correct? If so, what was the source of that report?

Mr. Channon: Goodness knows what was the source. It was not me. I do not intend to comment on speculative press reports. The Government are naturally considering their manpower policy for future years. I am in discussions with all relevant people.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is only one way in which a 25 per cent. increase in wage costs and 14 per cent. cash limits can be reconciled, namely, by substantial reductions? Will he assure the House that, this afternoon, unlike the last time he answered questions, Sir John Herbecq will not be going along to a Committee upstairs to tell it of a projected increase in civil servants in one Government Department?

Mr. Channon: No. I read my hon. Friend's article with great interest that

Sunday. For once and, I am sure, for the only time, he got the matter slightly wrong. It was very unusual. I assure him that there is a distinction between complement and staff in post. I have announced today new figures showing that staff in post on 1 April were 705,000. As a result of the 2½ per cent. reduction I announced on 14 March, the Civil Service will be well below 700,000 by the end of 1980–81.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Despite what the Minister has told the House, will he make clear exactly what are the Government's intentions on the cuts in Civil Service manpower? Is he aware that this House asks for certain services for the community to be provided by the Civil Service? It is not good enough to be talking in terms of 70,000 further cuts in manpower without saying which services will be affected. Will he also comment on reports that he and his Department will be abolished by the Prime Minister? Is there any truth in that report?

Mr. Channon: If my position is to be abolished, that would, no doubt, be a great relief to everyone. The hon. Gentleman will have to put that question to the Prime Minister. Questions on the organisation of government are a matter for the Prime Minister. The figure of 70,000 is the hon. Gentleman's. It is not one I have ever used. I assure the House that when the Government come to any conclusions about future manpower policy, the House will be kept informed and the trade unions consulted, as is proper in a situation of this kind.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the changing proportion and numbers of non-industrial to industrial civil servants in recent years; and if he will make a statement on future Government policy on total numbers.

Mr. Channon: The proportion and numbers of non-industrial to industrial staff reflects the tasks which are undertaken by Government Departments. As to the Government's policy on total numbers, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 19 March.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that over the last 20 years, until


recently, whereas the number of civil servants has increased by 100,000, the number of non-industrial civil servants—those most people know as civil servants—has increased by no less than 180,000? Is not one concealing a great increase in the other? When my hon. Friend gives these figures in future, will he always give the total number of non-industrial civil servants?

Mr. Channon: Yes, certainly. My hon. Friend is broadly right The number of non-industrial civil servants today is 547,600. The number has gone down considerably, by about 18,000 in the past year or so. Numbers of industrial civil servants have fallen by about half that number, although I am speaking from memory. My hon. Friend is broadly right. Numbers in the industrial Civil Service have fallen while those in the non-industrial have increased. That is a matter about which the Government are concerned.

Mr. James A. Dunn: What progress has been made in the dispersal of civil servants, as recommended by the Hard-man report? What progress has been achieved in regional dispersal to the extent of placing more jobs on Merseyside?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman may recall that I made a statement last July. There have been no changes in the situation since then.

Pay

Mr. Trippier: asked the Mnister for the Civil Service, if he will make a statement on the current pay negotiation with the Civil Service staffs.

Mr. Channon: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on 3 April. Since then the Government have decided that the settlements for the non-industrial civil servants should be staged with the new rates being paid in full from 7 May. Negotiations on the pay settlement for industrial civil servants, whose settlement date is 1 July will take place nearer the time.

Mr. Trippier: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that the pay settlement falls within the Government's cash limits policy of 14 per cent., and

that this is based not on the post-dated cheques of the previous Administration, as mentioned in the press recently?

Mr. Channon: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Civil Service pay award for 1980–81 is contained within the cash limits allowing for only 14 per cent. increased pay costs. The difference of 4¾ per cent. will be covered by staff reductions and the staging that I have announced. That is the reality of the situation. The Government are enforcing a limit of a 14 per cent. increase in pay costs, and making manpower economies to achieve it. I hope that others will take note.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the level of salary increases being obtained by civil servants.

Mr. Channon: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the truth of the situation is that average wage increases in the Civil Service have been in excess of 20 per cent. and not the 14 per cent. to which the Minister refers? Does not this signify that the Government have no more hope of introducing a pay policy in the Civil Service sector than they have of doing so in the industrial sector? Would the Minister care to tell the House what will be the cash limits for the next wage round for civil servants?

Mr. Channon: I will not say now what are to be the cash limits for 1981–82. It will be many months before anything has to be settled. I am not even over this pay round, let alone starting on the next. The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The position remains as I stated to my hon. Friend a few moments ago.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that there are several hundred boys and girls in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne languishing on social security who, but for the policies that he is pursuing, would have been following gainful employment? Does he feel satisfied with this situation? Is he proud of himself?

Mr. Channon: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not think that they relate to the question of pay rates for civil servants.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Should not another hard look be taken at the role of the Pay Research Unit? Since the Government rightly set cash limits, based on their calculations on what the community can afford, is it not thoroughly unfortunate that the Pay Research Unit should come forward with solutions that can only lead directly to redundancies?

Mr. Channon: I understand my hon. Friend's view. I must point out to him, as I did on an earlier occasion, that the Conservative Party election manifesto said that we would reconcile pay research with cash limits. That has been the Government's policy and one that I have been trying to implement. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Civil Service Staff-Side

Mr. Straw: asked the Minister for the Civil Service, when next he will meet representatives of the Civil Service Staff Side.

Mr. Channon: I met them yesterday, and I am sure that we shall meet again soon.

Mr. Straw: If the Civil Service is reduced by 70,000 would the Minister welcome that?

Mr. Channon: I should welcome the smallest Civil Service that the country can have which can carry out the tasks which Parliament sets it. I am certain that a smaller and even more efficient civil service would be in the national in-

terest and in the interests of the Civil Service.

Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend study the replies to a series of written questions to various Government Departments which I have tabled which, while bearing out the good results that he announced this afternoon, show that some Departments are still lagging sadly behind his requirements?

Mr. Channon: Each Department varies. I certainly do not wish to criticise any individual Department. I shall take note of what my hon. Friend says and bear it in mind when considering future policy.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister be able to assure the Civil Service Staff Side that before highly-paid jobs in industry or public corporations are offered to senior civil servants such as Mr. Ron Dearing, they will be advertised throughout the Civil Service? May we have assurances that such jobs will not be given to people in a clique working with a particular Secretary of State, but that the jobs will be brought into the open and advertised either generally or throughout the Civil Service?

Mr. Channon: The usual practice for the appointment of the chairmen of nationalised industries will be followed by those of my right hon. Friends who are responsible for appointments. The practice has not varied under successive Governments.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make.
I reminded the House recently of my concern at the way in which Question Time is being changed by open questions. By such questions I mean questions which give no indication to the House of the real question which the hon. Gentleman seeks to ask. Examples of such questions—and we have had them today—involve asking when the Minister expects to meet the chairman of a particular nationalised industry, of a particular trade organisation, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or his colleagues in the EEC.
Questions are listed on the Order Paper so that the House itself is given notice of questions that are to be raised and so that considered answers to them can be prepared. The whole House knows that the open question is allowed for Prime Minister's questions because of the desire of Members to table questions that will not be transferred to other Ministers. I confess to the House that I feel embarrassed when I see as many as 20 or more questions on the Order Paper all asking about the Prime Minister's engagements for the day. It would be far better for us all if the hon. Members concerned tabled the actual questions which they wished to ask the Prime Minister.
Since the special problems of Prime Minister's Question Time have been considered by the House relatively recently, I do not propose any change in practice in relation to it. When it comes to other Ministers, however, I see no reason why hon. Members should not put on the Order Paper the question that they intend to ask, or at least disclose its subject matter so that the whole House may know the topic that is being raised. In all honesty I have to say to the House that very often a supplementary question to an open question turns out to be one which could not have been accepted by the Table Office and is, therefore, an abuse of our rules.
In an effort to protect the House, I propose, for an experimental period, to extend the practice that I introduced in March 1978 for questions to departmental Ministers asking them about their

engagements for the day. When a question about a Minister's meetings with various persons or organisations appears on the Order Paper without its purpose being stated reasonably precisely, I shall allow it to be called and for the Minister to reply but I shall not call any supplementary questions. If the subject matter is indicated in the question, supplementary questions will be confined to that subject.
If in consequence of this action I find that other open questions are being devised, I shall consider applying the same restrictions to them. The new practice will be applied to questions tabled after today.
As I see it, if such action is not taken at this stage the character of our Question Time will be changed without the House itself having consciously decided that the old system of giving notice of questions should be pushed aside. I hope that I have the support of the House in the course that I have outlined.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you please examine a matter which arises as a result of your statement? The general problem arises because of the difficulty of pinning down Government Departments. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, want to protect the rights of Members to ensure that the Government are accountable.
Since you have, in effect, narrowed the opportunity of asking questions, will you also examine the way in which Government Departments narrow their opportunities to provide replies and the blocking mechanism which Government Departments put on answers by replying " No "? Such a reply means that it is impossible to table a similar question in the Table Office for three months, which eradicates the possibility of making the Government accountable for that period. All Governments use that system consciously. If we are to be inhibited to some degree, you, Mr. Speaker, should examine the matter which I have put to you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my statement if he thought that I was talking about pinning the Government down. There was no such reference in my statement. I remind the House that I am expected to be the guardian of our rules and Standing Orders. I can see a danger that the whole character of


Question Time will change unless this course is followed. I propose to follow it until the House instructs me otherwise.

Mr. Dykes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that there will be a wide welcome for your proposal. There is a special characteristic and possible problem in respect of EEC questions after the Foreign Affairs questions slot. Specific subjects are bound to be transferred to the relevant Departments because of the way in which the constitutional relationship between the Government and the EEC operates. There is bound to be a wider aspect in EEC questions because of the Foreign Office spokesman's role in dealing with constitutional matters relating to the EEC.

Mr. Skinner: Mr. Skinnerrose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in a moment. I welcome him back, on St. George's Day.
Whilst I am preparing myself to call the hon. Gentleman, I must tell the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that the subject of open questions about the EEC was one matter which I considered carefully. Such questions were asked last week. Neither the Minister nor the House knew what topic was coming up. The topics ranged between Afghanistan, the Olympic Games and Iraq. The House is entitled to have notice of the questions which are to be asked.

Mr. Skinner: I have left the dragon outside!
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you have not looked at the matter as closely as you should, especially in relation to the Common Market and the chairmen of nationalised industries. One of the problems is that we cannot ask relatively narrow questions about nationalised industries because of arguments about day-to-day administration. One of the reasons for questions about meetings with the chairmen of British Rail, the National Coal Board and other nationalised industries is to overcome the possibility of such questions being stopped at the Table Office. There will be difficulties if we are not allowed to table that type of question about nationalised industries. The matter needs another look.

Mr. Speaker: May 1 say, before responding to the hon. Gentleman's question, that I am glad that he is in his old forum? I mean that. I am very glad to see him. I do not say anything about hearing him, but seeing him—certainly yes.

Question No. 2 today, an open question, drew supplementary questions dealing with salaries on the railways, electrification on the railways, freight in Cornwall, " Transport 2000 ", rural transport, cash limits and the question of transport in Wales. Those questions, or some of them, could have been put on the Order Paper, and if they could not, they were out of order.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): May I, Mr. Speaker, express the gratitude of, I think, most hon. Members for your statement today, because I believe that the open question at Prime Minister's Question Time has led to abuse. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the present Prime Minister have attempted to return to the tradition of the more specific question. The more specific a question is, the more Ministers are in fact pinned down by it. I think that there would be a great danger to the tradition of our Question Time if the open question became the norm for all questions to Ministers, and I believe that the vast majority of hon. Members will be most grateful for the early action which you have taken.

Mr. Foot: While thanking you for the ruling or suggestion which you have given to the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that some of us have some sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friends, and one of the dangers of jumping out of the frying pan is that one may land in the fire. One of the problems is that these developments have occurred precisely because of real difficulties, and I therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, since you have yourself said that there shall be an experimental period, that if you find that the alternative abuse of Ministers being able to transfer questions or to escape their responsibilities arises, we should have the matter looked at by the Procedure Committee. Indeed, perhaps the Committee ought to look at it in any case. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that while


we conduct the experiment which you have asked for, we shall look at the other possibilities, and I urge that that should go to the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank you for your statement, Mr. Speaker, but may I draw your attention to the other side of the coin in relation to Departments and Ministers? I have recently put down questions to Ministers and been told in reply that, because of the disproportionate costs of finding out the information which I required, they were not able to give me the answer. When I have asked the Ministers concerned to tell me what the costs were to which they referred, they still did not give me the answer. Would you have a look at that side of the coin, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the House for the way in which it has responded. I suggest that we have this experimental period at least until the spring bank holiday, which, I think, is about five weeks away. We shall then look at it again, but I hope that it will work in the interests of the House.

IRAN

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on yesterday's decision by the Foreign Ministers of the members of the European Community concerning Iran. I am arranging for a copy of the text of the approved communiqué to be published in the Official Report.
As the House will recall, my right hon. and noble Friend and his colleagues had adopted a decision in Lisbon on 10 April which was, in effect, a last appeal to the authorities in Iran to release the hostages in conformity with international law. Our ambassadors in Tehran were instructed to convey this appeal to the Iranian President and to request him to name the date and method by which the hostages would be released. They did so on 12 April. Mr. Bani-Sadr's reply was unsatisfactory. The most he would say was that he hoped that a decision on the future of the hostages would be taken by the new Iranian Parliament when it had been elected and established. While holding out the prospect that visits to the hostages might be arranged, he could give no firm assurance about when the Parliament might meet, or whether it could be relied upon to act as he hoped.
When this matter came up in this House and in another place on 14 April, the mood of the House was unmistakable, and the phrase " the utmost solidarity with the United States " was used from the Benches on both sides. There was a general feeling that diplomatic methods had, for the time being at least, been exhausted and that the time had come to find some more concrete and far-reaching way of expressing our abhorrence at the continued defiance of the rules of international behaviour and the opinions of the civilised world.
The House will I hope, find this mood reflected in the decision adopted yesterday in Luxembourg. In accordance with a suggestion made last week by the United Kingdom, it was decided to proceed in two stages. In the first stage, the Nine will put into effect to the extent that they are not in force already certain measures mainly of a political nature. We shall reduce still further our embassy staffs in


Tehran. We shall insist on a parallel reduction in the Iranian embassies in our own capitals. We shall reintroduce a visa system for Iranian citizens, after giving due notice, and we shall formally ban the export of defence equipment to Iran.
The measures to be adopted in stage 2 are much more far-reaching, and it was this paragraph which occupied most of the time yesterday. If I may, I shall read the key sentences. Ministers decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran, dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed, and in accordance with the rules of international law. They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.
These are decisions of great gravity. If it becomes necessary to implement them, a wide range of commercial activities will be affected. It is, of course, our hope that, at this eleventh hour, the Iranian authorities will draw the inescapable conclusion that the continued detention of the hostages is not in Iran's own interest and should be brought to an end without delay.
If that does not happen, we shall face the situation which we contemplated when we cast our vote for the resolution presented to the Security Council in January except that now the action taken must be on the basis of national measures and not on the basis of a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations. The necessary measures will be laid before the House, and I believe that the Government can count on the co-operation of the House in handling them with the least possible delay.
The customary statement on the other business taken yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Council is being made separately in answer to a written question.

Mr. Shore: We are embarking upon a serious and inevitably uncertain course, but the Opposition have already made clear their view that the unlawful six months' detention of United States diplomats in Tehran is unacceptable and that

the international community should join in diplomatic, political and economic, but not military, measures to bring about their early release. We reaffirm that view now. We shall, of course, give proper consideration to any legislation which the Government bring forward, and we shall expect the Government to keep the House fully informed as developments unfold.
In the light of the unsatisfactory response of the Iranian President to the European ambassadors last week, has the Minister any real reason to believe that the very modest diplomatic measures now to be taken—which we certainly hope will be successful—will have an effect? Secondly, can he affirm that the Nine have all agreed that, if no effective Iranian response is made, they will on 17 May introduce measures to prohibit direct exports, the movement of goods, credits and loans and new service contracts—in other words, the same measures as were supported by Britain and France and eight other members of the Security Council on 13 January? Is it also the intention to ban oil imports on the same date?
Is it not plain that if economic sanctions are to have a reasonable prospect of success there will need to be much wider support for them than that of the Nine alone? Is not the OECD the obvious forum in which to pursue these matters, both because it includes the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the EFTA as well as the EEC countries, and because it is only through the OECD's international energy programme that emergency measures can be taken to pool oil supplies should that unfortunately prove necessary?
With regard to international political action, is it not a fact that the Soviet Union, along with all other members of the Security Council, voted on 4 December for a resolution calling for the immediate release of the United States hostages? Is there not, therefore, a strong case—in spite of their subsequent veto on 13 January—for seeking renewed Soviet co-operation in the matter? The issue of the hostages should not be seen primarily as an issue of East and West. It is in fact the lowest common denominator of serious and sane international conduct.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's statement of support.


We shall, of course, keep the House fully informed.
The political situation in Tehran and throughout Iran remains confused and fluid, and it is, therefore, right to make a further effort during the next three weeks—a little more than three weeks—to try to show those Iranians who are genuinely concerned with Iran's position in the world that that position will be undermined and put at risk so long as the hostages are held.
I confirm that there was complete agreement among the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on the measures that were announced. That is a satisfactory state of affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that the subject of oil was not mentioned in the communiqué that was issued yesterday. No request has been received from the United States that we should forgo imports of oil. We received a request that companies should not buy from Iran at prices sharply different from the reigning OPEC prices. As it happens, the new price that was announced recently for Iranian oil is very high, and therefore British companies have not bought Iranian oil, and are not now lifting Iranian oil at the increased prices. I understand that the same is true of Japanese companies.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in pointing out that this is not simply a matter of the United States and the Nine, and that other countries are closely involved. The Japanese Foreign Minister was in Luxembourg yesterday, and my right hon. and noble Friend had a long talk with him. We understand that the Japanese are associating themselves with the measures announced—which is important. Other countries are also involved, some of which are members of OECD. Britain and her partners are in touch with them so as to bring about the maximum solidarity.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in recalling that, initially, the Soviet Union went along with the demand that the hostages should be released. Later, it fell into the temptation of fishing in troubled waters, and it vetoed the second resolution in the Security Council. Nevertheless, we note, and we shall think carefully about, the right hon. Gentleman's

suggestion for a further approach to the Soviet Union on this matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Have the Government overlooked the notorious and proven ineffectiveness and counter-productiveness of economic sanctions? Are not the Government aware of the widespread and rising dislike in this country at seeing Britain dragged at the chariot wheels of the United States, which would not act in this way if the roles were reversed?

Mr. Hurd: No one can be happy about treading the path to sanctions, or be in any way dogmatic about the result. That is one reason why the European Ministers have given the Iranians more than three further weeks before sanctions come into effect. We very much hope that decisive progress towards the release of the hostages will be made within that time so that sanctions do not have to be implemented.
The right hon. Gentleman must take into account that yesterday the European Ministers were not considering a blank sheet of paper. They were considering a request from the President of the United States of America for help in a desperate situation in which, by universal consent, he has shown immense patience and restraint for five months.

Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend accept that his statement today is welcome as a demonstration that, faced with difficult circumstances, the Foreign Ministers of the Community can provide positive and joint action, which will be most welcome? Will he also accept that in the present delicate international situation a demonstration of solidarity with the United States is of paramount importance?

Mr. Hurd: It is satisfactory that throughout the Iranian crisis the Governments of the Nine and the embassies of the Nine in Tehran have worked together more solidly than on any other issue that I can remember. This solidarity survived a difficult test at Luxembourg yesterday.
I agree with my hon. Friend's second point. If the Foreign Ministers had returned a plain " No " yesterday to the request by the United States, the consequences for the Western Alliance would without doubt have been very serious.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May we on the Liberal Benches assure the Minister that we welcome the decisions that were taken yesterday? We consider that the maintenance of good relations with and support for the United States are of vital importance to Western European unity.
Will the Minister tell us how many British citizens are still living in Iran, and will he give us an assurance that they will be given every assistance to leave the country if they so wish?
One of my constituents and a constituent of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have been detained for over 10 weeks without any charges being brought against them. My constituent has now been released to the care of a British company but has not been allowed to leave Iran. Will the Minister tell us what is happening in those circumstances?

Mr. Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his promise of support. There are still about 350 British subjects left in Iran. Of course, many of them had an opportunity to leave, but they have preferred to stay. That is one reason why we propose to keep a small diplomatic staff in Tehran, so that they can continue to give what help they can in difficult circumstances.
Regarding the specific matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and in which several of my hon. Friends have constituency interests, I received this morning two conflicting messages as to the exact position of the two Britons to whom he referred. I shall certainly keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he receives the latest information. Our embassy staff are doing everything that they can, in difficult circumstances, to bring about the safe return to Britain of those two people.

Mr. Dalyell: In his statement, the Minister referred to the importance of the position of those Iranians who are genuinely concerned about their country's position in the world. Does he believe that the threat of sanctions will make their position easier or more difficult? If he were an ascetic Iranian mullah—the mullahs are the people with whom we are dealing—given these threats, would it be more or less likely that he would release the hostages?

Mr. Hurd: We are dealing with a fluid and swiftly changing situation in which different groups in Iran are jostling for power. As I said previously, he would be a rash man who would be dogmatic about the effect of particular sanctions. However, it is necessary, not simply for the United States but for her friends and allies, to show emphatically to the Iranians that their position as a major country in the Middle East, and as a major member of the international community, depends on compliance with this basic point of international law—that diplomats should be accorded the protection that international law guarantees. That is a major point, although secondary perhaps to the primary need for maximum unity within the Western Alliance.

Mr. Walters: The taking and holding of hostages is intolerable, and it is right that we should show our sympathy and solidarity with the Americans. However, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the British and European Governments will also make clear to the United States Government that foreign policy in the Middle East—in Iran and elsewhere—should be conducted in the interests of the West and not only in the interests of internal American politics, as too often it is?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly the duty of the allies of the United States to make sure that all these decisions are taken against the general background in the Middle East and, in particular, the overwhelming need to stem the threat from Soviet expansionism. It would be wrong and unfair to attribute American concern over the hostages to the fact that it is an election year. As the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said, if we this year—not an election year in Britain—had 50 British diplomats, or indeed any Britons, held as hostages for five months in Iran, there would be a very high level of emotion, anxiety and frustration in this country as well.

Mr. Faulds: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Americans pay such regard to the sensitivities of the British electorate? Does he agree that a one-term presidency in the United States would enormously enhance international relations? Will he understand and accept that if any form of military


action is undertaken by United States forces the utmost solidarity of which he spoke will very quickly evaporate?

Mr. Hurd: I do not accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
On the second part, certainly we would regard any suggestion of military action—no such suggestion has yet been made—as having very dangerous implications.

Sir Walter Clegg: Is my hon. Friend aware that many British firms in Iran which undertook contracts before the revolution are now being threatened by the Iranian Government with the cashing in of bonds which were given at that time and which are now made impossible of performance by the Iranian Government? Will the Government look at this matter and ensure that, if we are to impose sanctions against Iran, British firms are not made to pay out on those bonds?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We understand its importance. Ministers will have to consider its implications very carefully and urgently. Many of the contracts and performance bonds entered into before February 1979 are covered by the ECGD. Cover was withdrawn in February 1979 by the ECGD. Since then there obviously has been an element of risk in any new business.

Mr Winnick: While deploring the holding of the hostages, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is little enthusiasm in this country for economic sanctions and that some of us at least will vote against sanctions whenever the opportunity is provided in this House? As these sanctions are likely to be counter-productive in the situation prevailing in Iran, would it not be wise for Britain and the EEC countries alike to reconsider and recognise that sanctions will not work and that certainly they will not release the hostages?

Mr. Hard: I agree that there will be little enthusiasm for sanctions in this country. I think that there would have been even less enthusiasm for returning a refusal to the President of the United States and allowing the United States to

draw the conclusion that we were only fair-weather friends.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Government have agreed to the request made by President Carter on this issue—and I agree with their agreeing—is it not time that they put pressure on President Carter to release the guns for the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are being shot dead—not held as hostages. It is time that we had these guns for use against the IRA.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. The question that he raised was answered yesterday in the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some of the equipment requested has been delivered. A decision on the rest is awaited.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Whilst supporting completely the backing that the European Community has given to the United States, may I ask my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian group in the House, which has support on both sides, to take every opportunity of expressing the sense of sadness that many of us feel that there should be a parting of the ways with the Iranian people rather than with a regime that all of us may find objectionable? We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. Will my hon. Friend also tell us why, after all these months, nothing has yet been done to safeguard the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil from the Gulf is carried?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. [An HON. MEMBER: " Why? "] Because, as he rightly said, it is important to emphasise that our dispute and accusations lie against the detention of the hostages and those who are responsible for that detention. We are not seeking to influence or determine the way in which the people of Iran decide their own future, and I think that that is perfectly right.
My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the importance of the Straits of Hormuz. As he knows, we are in close and, I hope, constructive touch with the United States and the Gulf Governments on this question.

Mr. Buchan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many Labour Members have the gravest reservation about both the wisdom and the manner in which the decision was taken? Is it not time that


such decisions were taken in this House before being decided by EEC Ministers?
Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman considered the consequence of his action on many groups of workers in this country? For example, does he accept that the nation, not those workers, should bear the cost? Will there be any compensation for the workers of Talbot if the Iranian order there is stopped?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if we had gone ahead with sanctions, resolutions or measures without knowing that our main competitors—the Germans and the French, for example—were willing to do the same. The hon. Gentleman would have been in a great state of indignation and excitement at our soft-headedness in that regard. It is an excellent thing that the countries of Europe have come together and taken this stand collectively. The hon. Gentleman is right, as I made clear in my statement, that it is a matter for national measures, and these will have to be approved by the House in the usual way.
I have already dealt with the question of compensation. Ministers will need to look at this matter very carefully. I made the point that much of the business entered into before February 1979 is covered by the ECGD and that business entered into after ECGD cover was withdrawn was obviously entered into with some element of risk.

Mr. Warren: I welcome the initiative of approaching the Government of the Soviet Union to find out what, if anything, they are prepared to do to ease the situation inside Iran, but will EEC Ministers take the opportunity to make clear once again to the Soviet Union that adventures around the frontiers of Iran will not reduce the tension inside that country?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to stress that point, and we take every opportunity to act on it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four Members from either side before we move on.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that the political instability of Iran is due in

part to the rejection by sections of Iranian society of Western economic influence in Iran and that certain sections took the initiative in respect of the hostages? Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that sanctions of the type that he has outlined will influence those who wish to retain those hostages? Is it not even more likely to do the opposite?

Mr. Hurd: We have given the Iranians three weeks to ponder the consequences of the holding of the hostages. We know that people in positions of influence in Iran—I should not put it higher than that—are conscious of the dangers of the path that they are treading. We hope that they will use those three weeks to secure " decisive progress "—that is the phrase in the communiqué—towards the release of the hostages.

Mr. Crouch: I welcome Europe's demonstration of solidarity with our friends in the United States. My hon. Friend described their attitude to the Iranian crisis as " desperate ". That word frightens me somewhat. I hope that our voice and the voice of Europe will not be unheard and go unheeded in Washington if the situation is as desperate as he thinks it is.

Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. One of the advantages of the decision taken yesterday in Luxembourg is that it enables us, in a way that would not be possible if the other decision had been reached, to continue to pass to the United States the British analyses and consideration of what is wisest.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minister aware that, regrettably, it appears that sanctions will have to be applied if we wish to obtain the release of the hostages being held in the United States embassy in Iran? In the event of sanctions being applied against Iran, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to consider compensation for all firms who have business connections with Iran? If employment is seriously affected as a result of sanctions, will he take special measures to deal with any unemployment problems?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to answer that question twice already. Obviously it is an aspect of the matter that Ministers will need carefully to consider.

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is wide support for his statesmanlike and moderate approach to these matters—and support for the decision of the EEC—there may come a time when sterner measures will have to be contemplated? Unless the Iranian Government are aware of that, they are unlikely to take seriously what is now being suggested.

Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hope that he will forgive me if I am not drawn further down the track than 17 May.

Mr. McNally: Does the Minister appreciate that many of us fear that deadlines have an unhappy aptitude for being reached and then the ante is automatically up? Is escalating belligerency really the solution to the problem? May I urge the Minister to consider the calling of the Iranian Parliament? We are dealing with a region where face is still important, and where a way out, rather than abject surrender, is likely to be the real solution. I urge the hon. Gentleman to give wise counsel to the Americans; that is a service that we can undertake. Of all the proposals that have been put forward, the proposal that the convened, elected, Iranian Parliament should release the hostages appears to be the way out for those people of good will in Iran mentioned by the Minister.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right on the question of wise counsel, but it will not be received by the Americans unless it is accompanied by some effort on our part. He is right to underline the importance of the newly elected Iranian Parliament. The timetable worked out in Luxembourg yesterday is designed to enable it to get to work quickly on that aspect before the Foreign Ministers meet again on 17 May.

Mr. Aitken: As international economic sanctions have a proven record of failure, should we not face the fact that a third stage of measures against Iran is likely to be necessary and that it will involve military force? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that contingency plans are being considered to support such a third stage by the United States?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has a wide and long experience of the Middle East.

I think that he will understand the immense and manifold dangers throughout the Islamic world of attempting to treat the matter in a military way.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the role of his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary in obtaining a common approach by the European Community in support of the United States is warmly welcomed? What action will be taken by the European Community to ensure that the issue comes before the General Assembly of the United Nations? The taking of diplomatic hostages affects every country in the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks. The question of further action by the United Nations is something that we keep in mind at all times. The United Nations peace procedures following the veto of a resolution in the Security Council are somewhat complicated. Neither we nor the Americans have excluded the possibility of further action in the United Nations. We have a resolution of the security council, which was not vetoed, and the Americans also have obtained a judgment in the International Court of Justice.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the Government are to announce the imposition of sanctions, will they announce yet again that there will be an amnesty for all those who break them?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.

Following is the full text of communiqué issued by EC Foreign Ministers today, 22 April:

Decision by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine on Iran

1. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine member States of the European Community meeting in Luxembourg on 22 April discussed the implications of the recent events in Iran in the light of the reports by their ambassadors following the demarche to the President of Iran decided upon by the Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Lisbon on 10 April.

2. The Foreign Ministers expressed the solidarity of the Nine with the Government and people of the United States at this time of trial.

3. While welcoming the visit by the ICRC to the hostages on 14 April and noting the assurance given by President Bani-Sadr as to the living conditions of the hostages the Foreign Ministers expressed their profound regret that the Iranian Government has been unable to give precise assurances about the date and methods by which the hostages would be


released. The Iranian Government continues to ignore the clear call of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice to bring to an end a flagrant violation of international law and release the hostages.

4. Since the hostages were first detained, the Nine, in full respect of the independence of Iran and the right of the Iranian people to determine their own future, have insisted that they must be released. The fact that after six months they are still detained, despite the efforts of the Nine and the clear condemnation by the community of nations, is intolerable from a humanitarian and legal point of view.

5. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, deeply concerned that a continuation of this situation may endanger international peace and security, have decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed and in accordance with the tenets of international law.

They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples. In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions.

Ministers consider that, pending the entering into force of the measures mentioned above, no new export or services contract with persons and organisations in Iran should be concluded as of from now.

Steps will be taken within the Community in order that the implementation of the measures decided upon should not obstruct the proper functioning of the Common Market.

6. The Foreign Ministers decided meanwhile to put into effect without delay the following measures to the extent that they are not already in force:

(I) Reduction in embassy staffs in Tehran.
(II) A reduction in the number of diplomats accredited by the Government of Iran in their countries.
(III) The reintroduction of a visa system for Iranian nationals travelling to member countries of the Nine.
(IV) The withholding of permission for the sale or export of arms or defence-related equipment to Iran.

7. The Foreign Ministers decided immediately to contact the Government of the United States through the Presidency and to inform it of the decisions taken by them.

8. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, believing that this situation should be a matter of concern to the whole international community, call upon other Governments to associate themselves with these decisions.

9. The Foreign Ministers instructed their ambassadors to return to Tehran in the interval in order to convey the present decision to the Iranian Government, to follow the situation,

and to undertake all possible efforts to alleviate and improve the living conditions of the hostages pending their release.

They express the hope that the Iranian authorities will take action accordingly.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 14 April the Prime Minister made a statement on Iran. In reply to a question of mine she said:
 I think that the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that before any further action on economic sanctions could become effective, we would have to come back to the House.
Earlier she had said:
 A Government have no powers under international law just to break contracts that are valid in international law ".—[Official Report, 14 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 798.]
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that a decision has already been taken contrary to that clear statement——

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is making the point that he would have made had I called him to ask a question. It is not a point of order on which I can rule.

Mr. Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: I have said that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that point of order, as I have ruled that it is not one.

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. Dalyellrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order; I am on my feet. I wish to tell the hon. Gentleman that I would take it very amiss if he tried to persist on a point that I have ruled is not a point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise simply to ask whether the Leader of the House will tell us the timetable for the proposed sanctions order.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a question for the Leader of the House.

POWER STATION, GRAIN

Mr. Brinton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the announcement yesterday by the Central Electricity Generating Board that in June it is to close the power station at Grain, near Rochester in Kent.
I believe this matter to be most urgent because about 2,000 persons will lose their jobs as a result of that decision, in an area where unemployment is already high. There is also urgent need for a full and thorough inquiry into the events which led to that decision by the CEGB.
There is urgent need to discover what would be the intention of the CEGB and the Government as regards the future of the vast site on which it is estimated that about £550 million has already been spent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the announcement yesterday by the Central Electricity Generating Board that in June it is to close the power station at Grain, near Rochester in Kent.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman expressing his anxieties about what is likely to happen in June, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

SCOTTISH TEACHERS (PAY AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE)

Mr. Canavan: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the failure of the Clegg Commission to produce a satisfactory wages settlement for Scottish

teachers and the resultant disruption in Scottish schools 
Not only is it important to get a fairer deal for the teachers, who are an important section of the community; what is perhaps even more important is that the matter affects the educational opportunity of thousands of children, which is a matter of great concern to their parents.
I need not dwell on the importance of the matter to you, Mr. Speaker, because, like me, you spent part of your working life in education before coming to the House.
However, I should like to say a few words about the urgency of the situation. About 58,000 Scottish teachers have been waiting patiently for about a year for a fair settlement of their wages claim. On Monday of last week, the Clegg Commission at last came out with recommendations for increases of between 17 per cent. and 25 per cent. for teachers in England and Wales, but it failed lamentably to come out with a similar recommendation for teachers in Scotland and virtually told Scottish teachers that they would have to start their own comparability study from scratch.
There was understandable anger and resentment at such shabby treatment from a commission chaired by a fellow educationist, and perhaps it is not surprising that some teachers resorted to industrial action, even though the leadership of the teachers' union advised against that at this stage.
We can now see the results of the failure of the Clegg Commission. Over the past few weeks, thousands of schoolchildren in Scotland have been sent home from school or told not to come. There is the possibility of further disruption, and even threats to the important Scottish certificate of Education examinations which are due to begin on Friday and which are of vital importance to the future of many young people.
On Monday of this week, the Scottish teachers' salaries committee failed to reach an amicable settlement, but reports suggest that it came within £1½ million of a settlement. If the Government will express support in principle for the extra public expenditure involved, some of the heat could be taken out of the situation and a solution arrived at more speedily.
I have tried several times to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I told the Leader of the House to try to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the matter as soon as possible. As usual, the Secretary of State is conspicuous by his absence and his silence, and that is why I am appealing to you, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that this matter gets the parliamentary attention that it deserves by your allowing it to be the subject of an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the failure of the Clegg Commission to produce a satisfactory wages settlement for Scottish teachers and the resultant disruption in Scottish schools ".
The House will have listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman's statement. I have no doubt that he has raised a matter which is important north of the border. He is aware, despite what he said in the latter part of his speech, that I decide not whether the matter is to be discussed in the House but merely whether it should be discussed tonight or tomorrow night.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

SAUDI ARABIA

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the expulsion of the British ambassador from Saudi Arabia ".
I have only just been able to give you notice of my application in manuscript form, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be brief.
The matter is specific, in that the ambassador returned suddenly from leave

and, with the assistance of the Foreign Secretary, sought to allay the anxieties of the Saudi Government over a television film. Plainly, those efforts have not succeeded and the ambassador is now to be expelled.
The matter is important, because our relations with Saudi Arabia touch upon contracts worth billions of pounds to this country, not least in defence and construction, and touch upon the jobs of tens of thousands of British workers. They also touch upon the holding in Britain of large sums of Saudi assets which, if they were to be removed, could affect the position of sterling.
The matter is urgent, because a Select Committee of the House intends on Monday to proceed to Saudi Arabia, with the agreement of the House of Commons Commission and yourself, Mr. Speaker. It is an important consideration for the House that one of its Select Committees, in proceeding to Saudi Arabia, may not have the protection of the British ambassador.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
 the expulsion of the British ambassador from Saudi Arabia ".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously brought to our notice a matter of considerable significance to the House, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions that would require me to order an emergency debate tonight or tomorrow night, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you received a request from a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement on this obviously grave development, would you accept that request?

Mr. Speaker: I shall wait to see what is forthcoming. Obviously, the House will realise that we have not heard the last of that matter. I think that it is


wiser for the House to leave the matter for the time being.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I do not think that we can just leave the matter for the time being. Members of a Select Committee may be put at serious risk and the matter should have immediate priority.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to look at the question of the delegation going to Saudi Arabia and to invite members of the House of Commons Commission to do so. I hope that the House will not press me further. I think that it would be unfair to ask a Foreign Office Minister to speak off the cuff on such a serious matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Peter Fry.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

Mr. William van Straubenzee.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the weekly rate of child benefit for any child with effect from November 1980 shall be not less than £5·00; to provide that the rate of child benefit thereafter shall be adjusted not less than once per annum to correspond with changes in the index of retail prices; and to provide that the additional cost of the foregoing provisions shall be borne by the National Insurance Fund
On 26 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a logical and popular Budget, but it contained two surprises. One was that the alcohol and tobacco taxes were increased by only half or in some cases by less than half the amount which might have been expected by reference to the change which has taken place in the value of money since the last increases. The second was that the Chancellor announced an increase in child benefit to bring it up to 4·75 although the change in the value of money by November this year would have indicated a rise to over £5·00. I recognise that by the increase of 75p in the child benefit the Chancellor broadly met the indexation requirement of the Finance Act 1977 after allowing for the withdrawal of the 25 per cent. band—which, incidentally, is a step which I entirely support.
The cost of maintaining the real value of child benefit however would not have been very large. I understand that it would have been £50 million this year and £140 million in a full year. I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend did not therefore proceed to increase child benefit by that amount. It would have been equivalent to 1p a pint on beer, plus corresponding additions to the duties on wines and spirits, or 3½p on a packet of cigarettes plus parallel increases in other types of tobacco. I believe that a combination of these increases would not have caused resentment in the country—indeed, it was generally expected.
In effect, by his proposals the Chancellor seems likely to bring about, through the effect of market forces, a significant reduction in the amount the public spends on children's food and clothing, and an increase in spending on tobacco—which


at present is static when many hon. Members think that it should be declining—or on alcohol, consumption of which appears to be rising alarmingly.
My first object, therefore, in seeking to introduce the Bill is to ask the Chancellor to think again about this aspect of his Budget. I am sure that it would be generally welcomed in the House and popular in the country if he did so. But, more important, I am convinced that it would be right.
In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor said:
 Any civilised society has a special obligation to those who have completed their working life."—[Official Report, 26 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 1458.]
But if the concept of " One Nation " has any meaning, all of us who have come through our childhood adequately fed and cared for must also want to see that a reasonable minimum income is guaranteed to the children of our own time who will constitute the nation of the future.
The second object of the Bill is to deal with the question of future upratings of child benefit. The House must recognise that this raises serious issues which are not a matter of party politics. The first question that divides hon. Members on both sides of the House is how far it is proper to tax the breadwinner in order to transfer resources to his wife and children. Another question which gives cause for anxiety on both sides of the House is whether family support could even be undermining parental responsibility by giving some parents the feeling that they are not wholly responsible for their own children but can leave them to the social worker or the social services because society is ultimately responsible and they no longer have the primary responsibility for their own children. And another question which concerns the House is the extent to which family benefits are destroying the incentive to work.
It is important to put all those points in perspective. The combined value to standard rate taxpayers of child tax allowances and family allowances, even at the figure of £5 which I am seeking to recommend in my Bill, would still be less in real terms than it was in 1946 and 20 per cent. less than it was in 1955. These figures refer to a family with three children aged under 11.
What this means is that whereas we have brought old people along with the growth of the prosperity of the country, with child benefits we have allowed family support to fall behind, and it has not even kept pace with the real value of the shopping basket.
It is important not to confuse child benefit with the supplementary benefits addition for children which, from November, will be raised to £7.30 per week for children up to the age of 10 and to £10.90 per week for children aged from 11 to 15. That is substantially more than the child benefit figure which either the Chancellor or I myself am recommending.
I am indebted to the National Foster Care Association for providing me with figures of the boarding-out allowances for children aged 11 which are paid by local authorities for the most part at rates about three times as much as the basic child benefit, namely, £14, £15, £16, and in some cases substantially more, per week. Those figures may be a much fairer indication of the real cost of a child to the family.
If the Government were to make a commitment to a regular uprating of child benefit, I believe it would be advantageous and would help to take the issue out of party politics; but it would be essential to revise the composition of the retail prices index. The index is an extremely blunt and inaccurate instrument and it has two particular disadvanges. In the present make-up of the RPI, alcohol and tobacco are reckoned to amount to over one-tenth of average household expenditure. Thus if there were a 10 per cent. increase in the price of tobacco products and alcoholic drinks the index would rise a full point and the Government would be obliged to add £33 million to child benefit, although the amount of money that the mother would have to spend on the children because of the change in the price of alcohol and tobacco would obviously be negligible or nothing.
The second consideration is that the index lakes no note of family size. It is deemed to refer to an average sized household, but when we are suffering an increase in the price of bread, for example, as we are at the moment, it is a serious matter for a single person but it is four or five times as serious for a


breadwinner with a wife and two or three children to support. The retail prices index, therefore, should take into account the real circumstances of the family if we are to use it as a measure of the future uprating of child benefit. We need to reconsider the way we calculate the RPI to ensure that it measures real-life situations.
In the long title I also propose that the additional cost should be borne by the National Insurance Fund. That is not just to keep within the rules of order. We are now paying earnings-related contributions for national insurance, but we are moving exclusively towards the payment of flat-rate benefits. I am not necessarily opposing that reform, but it is a total break with the original concept of national insurance. It is fair to point out that, if contributions rise with incomes and some benefits rise with with prices, but child benefits do not necessarily rise at all, we shall create a system which will gradually transfer resources from children to the tax collector. This is a matter which the House should study carefully.
My third specific suggestion, which I have already discussed with the Leader of the House, is that we might set up a Select Committee, or at least a joint Sub-Committee of the relevant Select Committees, to study our whole policy for the redistribution of income and the administrative methods by which we carry it out. Such a committee could study the issues related to child benefit. It could look at the Green Paper which we are promised for the autumn on the

tax treatment of husband and wife. It could consider, for instance, the whole structure of housing subsidies and many other questions with a direct bearing on family policy.
By introducing the Bill I am seeking not to divide the House but rather to unite it. I have been warned that an hon. Member might seek to force a Division out of mischief. That would cheapen the whole issue and introduce a note of party opportunism which would be out of place. In that case, I would ask supporters in all parts of the House not to take part in the vote. However, I hope that the House will consider it useful for a Bill such as I propose to be brought in, and that I shall have the leave of the House to introduce it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Frank Field.

CHILD BENEFIT (UPRATING)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the weekly rate of child benefit for any child with effect from November 1980 shall be not less than £5·00; to provide that the rate of child benefit thereafter shall be adjusted not less than once per annum to correspond with changes in the index of retail prices; and to provide that the additional cost of the foregoing provisions shall be borne by the National Insurance Fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed [Bill 195].

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 5

DETERMINATION OF FAIRNESS OF DISMISSAL

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 7 leave out lines 5 to 13.
We are grateful for the fact that Mr. Speaker has allowed us to have a debate on what is an important clause, albeit a small one, not least because it is one of those clauses which have been widely ignored as a consequence of the style and manner of the Government's presentation of their legislation and the way in which he media have responded to that. The impression has been built up that the Bill deals with some of the alleged abuses of picketing, some of the aspects of the closed shop, that it provides Government assistance for ballots, and that that is about it.
As I said on Second Reading, that ignores the way in which, needlessly and provocatively, the Bill attacks a whole range of hard-won workers' rights which have been provided by statute in recent years.
For example, there are women's rights such as maternity leave, the right to have time off, and so on; and there are questions relating to compensation for unfair dismissal, guaranteed payments and a whole range of matters. Not least, the Bill is an attack on workers' protections against unfair dismissal.
In looking at the technicalities of the legislation we may overlook the human realities which it may bear upon. I make no apology for quoting, as I did in Committee, a relevant passage from the Donovan report, which, in regard to the need for statutory provision to safeguard workers against unfair dismissal, said:
 In reality people build much of their lives around their jobs. Their incomes and prospects for the future are inevitably founded in the expectation that their jobs will continue. For workers in many situations dismissal is

a disaster. For some workers it may make inevitable the breaking up of a community and the uprooting of homes and families. Others, and particularly older workers, may be faced with the greatest difficulty in getting work at all.
No one gave a warmer welcome than I did to the statutory provisions, when they were first introduced in 1971. Those statutory provisions have enjoyed the support of all parties in the House and have been widely regarded not only as having made a significant contribution to the necessary protections for workers but as having contributed to a much-needed improvement in the climate of industrial relations. Therefore, it is beyond comprehension that the Government should in this way deliberately seek to weaken those protections and at the same time add yet a further drop of acid into an already polluted industrial relations climate.
The Government are doing two things in the clause. First, they are returning to the form of words that was employed in the 1971 Act about the onus of proof in relation to an alleged unfair dismissal. Those words have been recognised as being unjust to the applicant and inappropriate to the necessities of industrial relations. The Government are making the position significantly worse by including a requirement on the tribunal which deals with unfair dismissal cases to take account of the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking.
As I understand it, that is argued to be a concession to small firms, which in recent years have understandably and properly conducted a vigorous lobby on their behalf through a number of organisations. It is right that we should take account of the special problems of small firms, but, as I said in Committee, the new words apply not merely to small firms but to a whole range of employers. They apply equally to the small employer in a back street—the building contractor with a boy, cart and ladder—and to the multi-million pound multi-national corporation which perhaps employs 100,000 people or more, as well as to the whole range in between.
That means that instead of dispensing justice with regard to the impact of unfair dismissal on the individual, the tribunal will have to grade it according to the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking. In other


words, there will be variations in what might otherwise have been equitable treatment, and what ought to be equitable treatment.
I should like, for a few minutes, to deal with the argument that these words were introduced in response to complaints from small firms about the burden of
employment protection legislation and the Government's declared response to those complaints. I remind the House yet again that these complaints are not new. The previous Labour Government sought to ascertain the facts and to discover how well-founded those complaints were. Two independent surveys were commissioned from highly reputable bodies outside the Department of Employment. It was obviously necessary to seek the services of an outside agency to free the Government from the allegation of bias. For the same reason, it was equally important that reputable bodies be employed.
I doubt whether many hon. Members would challenge the bona fides of the Opinion Research centre, which was commissioned by the Department to investigate complaints about the effects of employment legislation on small firms which employ fewer than 50 people. As I have said before, only 2 per cent. of those employers interviewed said that employment legislation was the main difficulty in running the business. ORC asked
 What would you say have been the main difficulties you have faced in the past year in running your business? 
I accept that that was in 1978, nearly two years ago. However, 20 per cent. of the respondents said " Lack of money ". They did not say " Unfair dismissal " or " Employment protection legislation ". Another 7 per cent. gave VAT as the reason. Of course, at that time VAT was about 8½ per cent. It is now 15 per cent.

Mr. John Grant: The Government were not going to double it!

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend reminds me that little did employers know that VAT would be doubled and that it would go up to 15 per cent. Had they known that, I wonder how many would have complained then. Lack of money was the first reason, at a time when the interest rate was 7 per cent. The primary cause of concern for small employers was their

inability to borrow money, but the interest rate then was significantly lower than it is now.
These employers then went on to cite high running costs. In 1978 they complained of electricity costs and such items as the rent burden. I wonder what they are saying today? It would be interesting, if we could persuade the Secretary of State to have a re-run of the ORC survey, to see what those employers are saying now.
Inflation was a prime source of complaint among small firms in 1978, when the inflation rate was less than half the present rate. Way down the list of complaints from employers in those small businesses covered by the survey—below lack of money, electricity and rent burdens, inflation, VAT and the cost of borrowing money—employment legislation was cited by only 2 per cent. of respondents as a problem.
The respondents to the survey were then invited to list the main difficulties that they faced. They mentioned 597 problems, and yet employment legislation was mentioned by only 6 per cent. of respondents. It ranked equal twelfth in the list. Financial difficulties were mentioned by 44 per cent. of respondents, and 35 per cent. of them referred to labour problems. Of the small firms, only 4 per cent., as compared with 9 per cent. of large firms, cited employment legislation as a problem.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: My right hon. Friend is quoting telling and valuable information from the survey. I wonder whether he noticed in the business section of The Observer of 30 March this year a long interview with Mr. Sean Mayo, the chairman of the Union of Independent Companies—the small businesses organisation. In that interview Mr. Mayo said that the two big problems facing small businesses this year were the unwillingness of banks to involve themselves in small businesses and high interest rates. In a long interview, Mr. Mayo made no mention of employment legislation.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend's intervention confirms and reinforces my argument, and I have a suspicion that my hon. Friend may later contribute even more telling arguments to the debate.
I was saying that employment legislation as a problem came way down the


list in the survey that I have quoted. At the top of the list were complaints about lack of money, and 16 per cent. of respondents complained about VAT. Lack of orders was cited by 21 per cent., inflation as a problem was cited by 9 per cent. of the respondents and employment legislation was a non-runner.
The survey asked specifically whether Government measures had helped or caused difficulties to small firms. In this context, the most frequently referred to problems were VAT, regulations concerning drivers' log books and EEC regulations Other taxation problems were referred to by 9 per cent. of respondents, and 7 per cent. of them spoke of national insurance contributions. Unfair dismissal as a problem was way down the list, being cited by only 4 per cent. of the respondents.
Evidence from the ORC survey does not stand alone. The industrial relations research unit at Warwick university carried out an investigation, and in a survey dealing specifically with unfair dismissal—among employers who had been involved in actions for unfair dismissal—it found that 25 per cent. of employers questioned said that the system was biased against them. However, only 5 per cent. of employers spoke of the onus of proof—the concept that an employer is " guilty until proven innocent "—as an unfavourable feature of the tribunal system. If there is a widespread feeling about the system among employers, it must exist among those who have experienced that system at first hand. Perhaps that is an indication of the need for education rather than for legislative change.
I return to the survey undertaken by the unit from the University of Warwick and to the other aspect of the clause which gives strong grounds for anxiety. The reason for that anxiety is the proposed change in the onus of proof. The proposals concerning proof, as I understand them, are a response to allegations by employers that, contrary to the principles of natural justice, when they go before a tribunal they feel that they, as respondents, are regarded as guilty persons who must prove their innocence. The supposition of the law, they say, is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
What is too often overlooked is that, proceedings having reached the tribunal stage, it is the employee who has already suffered as the victim of an arbitrary action by his employer. Often the employee has had no chance to defend himself. He is the person who—often without the chance to say anything in his defence—has been declared " guilty " by his employer.

Mr. Mikardo: He has also been sentenced.

Mr. Walker: An employee appears before a tribunal to protest against an arbitrary act which, as I have said, may have far-reaching consequences for his life and career. In Committee I gave a specific example of a person in my constituency who had been a victim of such an arbitrary act. I shall resist the temptation to go over that case again, save to say that, unhappily, that individual—who was grossly and unfairly treated by his employer—has not received justice.
We are now discussing the serious consequences of dismissal for a worker. Dismissal deprives a man of his livelihood. It also deprives his family of their livelihood. Dismissal deprives a man of his self-respect and can have a totally destructive effect on his career. It can be demoralising and leave a scar for life. This is a serious issue, to which an employer should be required to give equally serious consideration. Part of that consideration must be the likelihood that he will be required to explain his actions before an industrial tribunal.
As I said in Committee, it is curious that the very thing that has been criticised in relation to statutory provisions for protection against unfair dismissal—which the Government now seek to change—has been present as an integral part of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. There was an obligation on the employer under the provisions of that Act to prove redundancy. That concept has never been challenged, and I am glad that the Government are not seeking to challenge it now. Were they minded to do so we would fiercely resist such a change; just as we resist these provisions.
The Government's approach is inconsistent. They are not only inconsistent, but they demonstrate an inability to recognise the seriousness of dismissal for any


employee. The attempt by the Government to weaken these provisions is not only contrary to the need for consideration to be given to workers in those circumstances, but is part of their needless attack on the fundamental rights of workers. That attack is contributing to a worsening and a souring of the industrial relations climate in this country, and the Opposition will continue to resist the Government's attempt to make this change.

5 pm

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The clause, together with other clauses, reduces the protection that employees have against unfair dismissal. Running through each of the clauses there is a regrettable attack upon those who work for small firms. It is an attack that is couched in terms of protection for the small employer.

Clause 5 will make it much more difficult for an employee to claim damages for unfair dismissal against his employer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has said, the burden of proof has been altered. It will no longer be necessary for the employer to establish that he acted reasonably. Instead, the tribunal will be obliged to act in what might benevolently be called a neutral manner. None the less, it will be more difficult for the employee to claim damages for unfair dismissal—in other words, to establish his case.

As my right hon. Friend has said, the employee has a great deal at stake. He has lost his job and he has lost his livelihood. The claim that he is trying to establish before the tribunal is important for him not only in financial terms; it is a matter of pride especially in a small community where there is a stigma attached to losing one's job.

Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an additional problem? In many areas there is a great deal of unemployment. If an individual loses his job through unfair dismissal in an area in which there is heavy unemployment, he will be in grave difficulty when he attempts to get another job in the same area. The prospective employer will obviously ask " Why did you leave your last job? " The individual will have to reply " I was dismissed." No

doubt he will protest that it was unfair dismissal. Nevertheless, the chances of the employer taking him on in those circumstances are remote.

Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend is right. He has a great deal of experience in these matters. In communities where there is high unemployment, which is true of the area that I represent and true of the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), there is great difficulty in finding a job when the individual has been dismissed by another firm. The difficulties that the employer faces in establishing that his actions were reasonable are not as great or as onerous as those faced by the employee in establishing his rights. That is because they appear before the tribunal in different circumstances. There is not as much at stake for the employer as there is for the employee. I do not think that even the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who can crush many propositions with a great deal of charm, can dismiss my proposition by claiming it to be outrageous.
Secondly, the clause makes it more difficult for the employee because the tribunal is charged with taking account, before it comes to its decision, of
 the size and administrative resources 
of the firm in question. That has the effect of setting apart different employees. It provides that the legal rights of an employee who works for a small firm will be less in terms of unfair dismissal than the rights of those who work for a larger undertaking. That is creating two different sets of employee. That is bound to cause resentment, especially in a small community, between those who work for small firms and those who work for larger firms.
If I worked for a small firm and I felt that it was more difficult for me to obtain damages to compensate for unfair dismissal—not because I worked less hard, not because the nature of my work was different, but purely because I worked for a firm with fewer employees than my neighbour—obviously I should be resentful and disgruntled. I should feel that the law was treating me less favourably than my neighbour in a larger firm. That cannot be right.
What evidence have the Government produced that it is right to establish two different sets of principles for two different sets of employee? There is no evidence that the tribunals act unfairly. All that the Government are saying is that some employees are not fully aware of the fairness of the tribunals and that they will ensure that they are made aware of it by introducing this legislation. Surely that is an argument for making the employer more aware of his legal rights and his legal obligations. If the tribunals are acting fairly, as they are at present, why should the system be altered to the detriment of the employee? The Minister evinced no evidence in Committee that the employee will benefit from the Bill. The evidence from the Low Pay Unit and from those who have engaged in research is that the clause and the Bill will harm him, hurt him and make it more difficult for him to claim his legal rights. That is why I fully support the amendments.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I have attended a couple of unfair dismissal hearings before tribunals. The score is two-nil for me. I am especially interested in the clause and the amendments because I am left wondering whether the decisions would have gone against me rather than for me if the provisions contained in clause 5 had been operable at the time.
One case that I remember vividly involved a waiter who worked in a small restaurant who was sacked unfairly. It did not take the tribunal long to decide that he had been sacked unfairly. It gave him a reasonable sum in compensation. However, given the inclusion of the words to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) referred—
 the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) "—
I do not think that a capable legal representative of an employer would have had much difficulty in arguing that a small restaurant came within that notion and, therefore, should be protected against having to pay compensation.
My hon. and learned Friend was right when he said that the Government are deliberately inserting double standards into the Bill. The trade union movement should take serious note of these

insertions if the Bill becomes part of the new employment legislation. It will have to begin to advise its members not to take up employment in small firms if they are to be placed in a situation less favourable than that enjoyed by employees in other firms because of
 the size and administrative resources 
of the firm involved.
It may be argued that clause 5 is at least consistent with the philosophy of the Government. The Government are anxious to assist small firms and that anxiety stretches to the right to exploit workers in more favourable circumstances. They believe that the provision will assist firms to pursue their activities without the fear that they may be guilty of unfair dismissal. Within our society firms such as Imperial Chemical Industries and Unilever are just as likely to be guilty of unfair dismissal as smaller firms. However, small firms will have the knowledge that this measure will protect them against the possibility of the employee seeking access to the courts and obtaining a favourable judgment.
The provision illustrates clearly that when Conservative Members talk about freedom they are talking about a complete myth. Such employees do not have freedom of choice. The workers at Grun-wick did not have that choice. No doubt the hon. Member who assisted Grun-wick's owner would have considered this provision a tremendous advantage. The size of that undertaking would probably fit into this clause.
I hope that some of the legal experts among the Opposition will come to my aid, because I do not understand how the individual giving judgment will interpret the words " size and administrative resources ". No example has been given. Are we talking about firms that employ one to 100 employees, or those that employ 501 to 600 employees? I can think of several small firms that appear to have inadequate administrative resources, but when we investigate them more closely we find that they are subsidiaries of other firms that have considerable resources. The Government should spell out the meaning of that phrase.

Mr. John Grant: I hope that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government have said that they have incorporated that phrase into the Bill for the sake of


clarity. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can help us. However, when questioned, he has said that we can leave the interpretation of that phrase to the good sense of the tribunal.

Mr. Thorne: Many trade unions will be worried about that. They may find their future and their rights determined by a court. That reminds me of a decision about which Parliament has argued for eight or nine years. As a trade unionist I would never expect—in this type of society—to obtain justice in a court of law. Laws are made to buttress the system, and in this society the law is more favourable to the employer than the employee. It is usually class legislation, and this provision is another illustration of it.
I am not under any illusion about what the Minister may say in reply. He will defend the legislation according to his preferences. He will find little difficulty in doing so. I have heard him speak in Committee on other issues, and he can argue an effective legal case. However, he is generally in support of the status quo and of maintaining the balance of power in favour of the employing class. Clause 5 pursues that aim and is against the interests of the majority of trade unionists. It is therefore unacceptable to the Labour Party.

Mr. David Mellor: I am sorry that, because of other parliamentary business, I was not present when the amendment was moved. I have had considerable professional experience of working in industrial tribunals and of dealing with the burden of proof, which lies at the heart of this provision. I therefore feel that it is right for me to raise a few points.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) about the ability of tribunals to determine matters, in the light of this provision. Nor do I agree with some of his observations about class-based legislation. My experience stretches over several years. I have acted for applicants and for respondent companies, and I feel that industrial tribunals do their job extremely well. One of the most useful and interesting aspects of their work is that the legally qualified chairmen work well with their two lay associates, one of whom is a trade

unionist and one of whom is an employer. Perhaps it is cruel to bring reality into the hon. Gentleman's observations. However, I do not understand how on earth he can talk about class-based justice when a member of the panel has been nominated by the TUC. Perhaps we should not expect logic when discussing such topics in the light of the observations of certain Opposition Members.
The nub of the issue is on whom should the burden of proof lie in establishing a case of unfair dismissal? Clearly it is wrong that the burden should be placed—as at present—on the employer. That sets on one side the rule governing the whole of civil law, namely, that the plaintiff must come to court with a grievance and prove his case. If a worker is knocked down on his way to the factory and wishes to maintain a claim for negligence against the driver, he must establish that, on the balance of probabilities, the driver had been negligent. If he is in dispute with someone who has supplied him with a television set or a motor car, he must go to court and satisfy the court that, on the balance of probabilities, a breach of contract has occurred. It was wrong to reverse that situation in the first place.
There might have been a case for arguing that the burden of proof should be placed on the applicant. Indeed, to judge from the strictures on the Government, one might have thought that that was being proposed. However, that is not so. It is being said that the burden should be neutral and that tribunals, as industrial juries and commonsense people, should be left to decide the case according to the circumstances.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the amendment contemplated by my right hon. Friend, the burden still rests on the employer to show the reason for the dismissal and that the dismissal falls within one of the designated classes? Does he further agree that if the employer is unable to discharge that burden, the dismissal will be deemed unfair?

Mr. Mellor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government do not seek to change dramatically the way in which tribunals operate. The measure is a piece of fine tuning and is not the dramatic change that has been suggested.


The hon. Member for Preston, South referred to the phrase:
 including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking 
If he had done more than two tribunals, he might have understood them better. I cannot understand why he should think that the provision will cause problems for industrial tribunals.
Courts up and down the land—no matter what they deal with—must always look at the decision that they make in the light of certain factors that have been set down by the court.

Mr. John Grant: If the hon. Members' point is valid, why should the Government put in this provision? In Committee the Minister said that the tribunal would take these matters into account anyway. Therefore, it is difficult to see the reason for this provision.

Mr. Mellor: As I understand it, the Government must respond to the pressure that they are under—quite rightly—from small firms with particular problems. The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) should not look so smug, because it is usual in any form of legislation to put in certain points that the courts are asked to bear in mind. For example, in the Matrimonial Causes Act dealing with the break-up of a marriage and the distribution of property, there is a long list of factors, such as the duration of the marriage and the standard of living that the parties enjoyed, that courts must look at specifically. That does not mean that if these provisions were not included a sensible tribunal would not look at them, but as a matter of common sense it is necessary for Parliament in its wisdom properly to direct the courts to the points that it feels they should bear in mind. Aggrieved parties can look with rather more strength to the Court of Appeal if they think that these crucial social factors have not been borne in mind.
It is quite wrong that this clause should be deleted, it is a sensible clause, a piece of necessary fine tuning, and it will make a system that is working well work even better.

Mr. Giles Radice: I wish to take up one or two points made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).

Legal protection from unfair dismissal is one of the essential rights of a civilised industrial society. This Bill attacks that protection at two key points: first, on the test of circumstance—and taking this clause together with clause 7 we find that employees in small firms will be far worse off than they were before—and secondly, on the change in the burden of proof. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) has just made the point that the tests of circumstances are already taken into account by industrial tribunals. Therefore, it is not necessary to change the law in this way.
Let us look at the Government's case that this is a deterrent to small firms taking on labour. I believe that this is a very crude case, and there is very little evidence to support it. In fact, there is so little evidence that the Minister, who conducted himself extremely skilfully in Committee, found himself having to fudge the evidence on this matter. I have the Committee record with me and I have just referred to it. We tested him sharply and he revealed that there was very little evidence for the Government's case.
What is really important to small firms is the high interest rates. Small business men are concerned about whether banks will lend them money. They are concerned about the state of the industrial markets which, as everyone knows, are extremely bad at present. In many areas small firms are facing catastrophe. They are faced with redundancies, particularly in the North and other areas of high unemployment. The Government should not be tinkering around with the fine tuning. They should be doing something about bringing down interest rates and making finance more readily available to small firms.
If the Government are interested in doing something about the Employment Protection Act, they should tell small firms what the Act actually involves. If the Minister would tell the House that he would withdraw the clause and ensure that small firms really know the implications of the Employment Protection Act. we would go along with him. The evidence that we have indicates that small firms do not understand the Act. If the Department of Employment would at least tell them what the Act is all about we might get somewhere.
I wish to make a few comments on the change in onus of proof. We regard this as a retrograde step because in a dismissal case this factor is extremely important for employees and not so important for employers. When an employee is dismissed he is at his weakest and the employer is at his strongest. That is why the Employment Protection Act singled out dismissal cases as those where the onus of proof should be placed on the employer.
In Committee the Minister said that this was only a small but useful change because there were other protections as well. There were four other tests which an industrial tribunal must take account of. In any case the court would be looking at the question in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case. If it is such a small change, why bother with it? Why bother to upset the trade unions and make employees feel less secure?
I know what the Minister will say because I have just refreshed my memory and looked at his speech in Committee. He will say that this is important psychologically. Small firms will rush around taking on labour because they will not be worried about the onus of proof. I agree that it is important psychologically, but in a different way. The psychological problem that will now arise is that employees will feel far less secure than they were before.
I do not think that anyone would suggest that employees are not facing difficulties. It has been forecast that there will be 2 million unemployed and unemployment is rising all the time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman came with me to the North I could show him that redundancies are being announced almost every day. The situation is very difficult for employees, but they at least have the comfort of the Employment Protection Act. They know that they have the security provided by that Act. But suddenly they will find that their security is weakened by this clause and by clause 7, and as a result there will be two classes of employees. If employees now feel more insecure, the Government have only themselves to blame.

Mr. Ron Leighton: This is a very short clause but it is nevertheless important. We are talking about people losing their jobs. We are talking about people being dismissed—not only dismissed but specifically unfairly dismissed.
Last night the Conservative Benches were full of hawks and others who were worried about the possibility, in certain circumstances, of people losing their jobs as a result of the closed shop. They regarded it as an infringement of personal liberty. Today the Conservative Benches are empty. The Tories are not in the least worried about people being dismissed unfairly by their employers. That is very instructive to me.
The purpose of this short clause is to alter the law. At the moment the determination of fairness depends on whether the employer can satisfy the tribunal that he has acted reasonably. Instead, it is proposed to amend the 1978 Act to read
 in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking) 
5.30 pm
A small firm gets a let-out. It has been suggested that tribunals already take this factor into account. Why is it therefore to be included in the Bill? In the words of the Under-Secretary of State, often heard in Committee, it is to give a steer to the tribunals. It means, in relation to small firms, that the provisions will be weakened and rendered nugatory. There will be a form of legal apartheid with two classes of citizens, those with one set of rights and others with lesser rights. It will be a sliding scale of justice.
There is no evidence that small businesses are worried about this legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) quoted evidence of a couple of years ago. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) came in late, made a speech and left early. I hope that he will soon return. We are fond of him and appreciate his presence. Like other Members, including myself, the hon. Member for Putney will have received a communication from the Greater London Council that is temporarily controlled by the Conservative Party. The document is headed


" Small Businesses ". It is sent to hon. Members for their information. An accompanying letter states:
 Early last year the Council produced a consultation document entitled ' Small Business ', which was distributed to London MPs, borough councils and relevant organisations for comments.
 You may be interested in the enclosed copy of a report summarising the outcome of the consultation process which was considered by the Council on 11 March 1980.
The council wrote to me on 11 April. No document could be more up to date or relevant. It lists six points relating to comments that have been received. The document reads:
 A wide range of valuable points emerged in responses to the discussion paper. Those that seemed to be particularly worthy of note are summarised in the following paragraphs:
I shall not bore the Minister by quoting all of them; I shall merely give the heading. The first was
 Taxation—The majority of respondents considered that the tax system worked against the healthy development of small businesses.
The second issue about which respondents were worried was
 Finance—The problems of and limited possibilities for raising finance generated considerable comment.
I am not in the least surprised when there is a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. What sort of profit do they need to earn with a minimum lending rate—some of them probably pay more—of that order? I am not surprised that it raised considerable comment.
The third point about which the small businesses were concerned was
 Information—Information, advice and training for entrepreneurs.
I suppose that they should be directed to the Secretary of State for Industry, who has a special interest in entrepreneurs.
The fourth issue was
 Premises—A major difficulty identified was a lack of suitable premises the right size and at the right price and lack of information about what was available.
The fifth concern was
 Planning—Major simplifications of planning procedures were advocated.
The sixth and last concern was
 Bureaucracy and other issues—A number of suggestions were made regarding the removal of onerous form-filling.
and other issues, including shortages of skilled labour, traffic and transport problems

and high rates. Virtually nowhere is found the onerous obligations of employment protection legislation. There is no evidence that it is necessary, in the interests of small businesses and in order to stimulate small businesses in London, to take away the rights of people to protection against unfair dismissal. No evidence was produced in Standing Committee. The GLC, after consulting small business men, finds that the business men are not concerned about employment protection legislation. They are concerned about high interest rates and other burdens that the Government have placed upon them.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) illustrate that there is no demand from small businesses for this clause. I hope, therefore, that the House can devote some attention to other aspects of the problem.
I wish to deal with a matter that has not been discussed, namely, the reaction of trade unions to discrimination between one trade unionist and another. The Government often rush into legislation without any regard for the likely reaction of the trade union movement. The unions will obviously not allow discrimination between their members. They will endeavour to steer workers away from small industries where their members are not properly protected against unfair dismissal. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East read from a list provided by the GLC, setting out some of the problems facing small businesses. One problem is that small businesses cannot recruit skilled labour. That problem will become even more difficult if the Bill is allowed to go through unamended.
Many trade unions keep lists in their district offices of firms that they advise their members not to join. It is a black list of firms which, in many cases, pay much below trade union rates and where conditions are not up to union standards. The unions advise their members not to seek employment with those firms. Now, further firms will be added to the list. The unions will advise their members that they will not be protected


against unfair dismissal if they seek employment with small firms, in contrast to colleagues working for larger firms who are fully protected by the Act.
I do not know what is meant by the words
 the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking ".
There will be great debates at the tribunal; debates concerned not with the merits of whether a man has been unfairly dismissed, but with whether the administrative resources of the firm entitle it to special consideration.

Mr. Mellor: Mr. Mellorrose——

Mr. Fletcher: I shall develop this argument before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to his experience in appearing on behalf of applicants and employers before industrial tribunals. Now he has another task. His job will be to plead poverty and to say that the firm that he represents does not possess the resources to meet its full obligations. There may be problems with exports to Iran, over the fact that high rate of the pound is interfering with exports, or over high interest rates and increased charges for gas and electricity. The firm will plead that it has to be considered a special case. There is no doubt that such pleadings will be made. The tribunal will not ask for audited accounts to discover a company's financial position or whether it has the resources to meet the costs or awards made by the tribunal.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. The argument has nothing to do with the financial resources of a company. The reality of all the cases is that the question whether an employer is reasonable or unreasonable often depends on the size of the undertaking, how big its personnel department is, and whether the management knows the individual worker. A tribunal must take those aspects into account when deciding whether a dismissal is reasonable. It has nothing to do with whether a company can pay the costs.

Mr. Fletcher: That is debatable. No cases have been heard under the new legislation. There could be a debate about what resources are. Are they financial re-

sources, or personnel resources? Many small firms do not have a personnel department. It is easy to estimate the size of a company, but it is more difficult to estimate its resources.
The clause will make it more difficult for firms to recruit labour, because it discriminates. When employers realise—as they already have in London—that they need to recruit skilled labour and that that will be more difficult because trade unions are steering their members away from secondclass firms which do not have the same facilities regarding unfair dismissal as large firms, they will ponder whether the Conservative Government are doing them a good turn by the legislation.
We condemn the clause. There is no demand for it, as research sponsored by the Department of Employment shows. Only 2 per cent. of small firms are anxious about this matter. It is ironic that more small firms than ever are becoming bankrupt every day because of the Government's policies. The number of bankruptcies has doubled since the Conservatives came to power, and yet they pay lip-service to small businesses and say that they will help them. If small businesses have friends in the Conservative Party, they do not need any enemies.
The Government intend to make it more difficult to recruit labour. They are introducing legislation that will make it more difficult for small firms to operate, in addition to high interest charges and other factors, and these firms are adamant that they do not want this legislation. That is reflected in the statistics given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster.
I hope that small businessmen will recognise where their true friends are. They are on the Opposition side of the Chamber. We are trying to protect them against irresponsible legislation. We are trying to encourage them in their desire to build up their businesses and to employ the labour that they need. We want to protect trade unionists against the discrimination between first-class citizens, entitled to all the rights of the legislation, and second-class citizens who, because they happen to work for a small firm, are deprived of protection against unfair dismissal. I hope that the amendment will be carried. I hope, too, that the Government will ponder what has been said here


and in Committee, and have second thoughts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Much has been said with which all sensible people will agree. For example, the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) said that an employee is at his most vulnerable when he is dismissed. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) said that to be dismissed was to suffer a great disruption in one's life. He said that if dismissal takes place in unfair circumstances that can lead to a scar for life. I agree with those sentiments, as will most sensible people.
It is right for the concept of some property in one's job to be introduced into our law in addition to the protection that the common law has always given. It is not enough for an employer to say " I have sacked you. I gave you the notice that I contracted to give you and therefore you have no complaints against me ". The employment protection legislation provides that, if someone is not sacked for one of the four justifiable reasons and an employer has not acted reasonably overall, the employer must pay compensation. We support that. It is a welcome addition to our industrial law.
However, we part company with the Opposition in their allegation that the provision in some ways weakens the rights and protection conferred upon employees. The whole purpose of the changes that we are seeking to make to the employment legislation in this modest Bill is to strengthen the employment prospects of people who work in small businesses especially, but in businesses generally.
It is not sensible to say that the Government are embarking on a direct attack upon working people, as the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) said uncharacteristically. I accept that it would be beyond comprehension, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster said, if the Government were seeking to weaken significantly the rights of employees.
The purpose of the legislation is to encourage people to employ more staff. It rests upon the Government's assessment that there is a belief that the present legislation is unfairly biased against

employers. It was right for the right hon. Member for Doncaster to begin his speech by saying that human realities must always be taken into account and must never be lost sight of. That is what it is all about.
I can explain that by summarising the effect of the amendment. It is to delete clause 5. The amendment returns the onus of proof as to the reasonableness of a dismissal to the employer. It removes the requirement that tribunals should take into account
 the size and administrative resources 
of a firm in determining whether the employer acted reasonably.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that human realities must never be left out of account, and among the human realities to be taken into account in this context is what we believe to be the widespread feeling—it may be challenged; certainly, the basis for it can be challenged without much difficulty—that under this jurisdiction on unfair dismissal an employer is assumed to be guilty until he has proved himself to be innocent. It is widely felt that this is an unfair jurisdiction and that the results of these cases are unfairly biased against employers.
I say at once that the tribunals have no difficulty in rebutting the charge that they are unfair in their operations. Not only is there the point already forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), that the tripartite basis of the tribunals, with an independent chairman presiding over a TUC nominee and a CBI nominee, ensures their impartiality, but one has knowledge if one is in the know, if I may so put it, having to look at the outcome of these cases, that about 70 per cent. of claims for unfair dismissal are decided against the claimant. For those who are in the know, that disposes of the suggestion that the tribunals are biased against employers.
The trouble is that so many of those who today fulfil the extremely important function of employing people in this country are not and cannot be in the know. It is therefore important, if one can do so without significantly or seriously diminishing the proper protection which the 1978 Act gives to the interests of workers, to do what one can to mitigate that which is seen, perhaps inaccurately, as being a


source of unfairness. That is exactly what is proposed in the clause.

Mr. Leighton: Let me be sure that I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. He says that the tribunals work on the basis of common sense, having no bias one way or the other, and we have had corroboration on that score from the Government Benches. Second, he says that the majority of claims fail.
If, therefore, there is nothing for the employer, and especially the small employer, to worry about, the Minister's purpose ought to be to get the message across to the small employer that he will receive justice. Is there not a better way of doing that than by altering the legislation? Is it not better to do it by information instead of by changing the law, which seems to give a steer against the employee? Is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman says a rather disingenuous rationalisation for what he is doing?

Mr. Mayhew: It is a question of doing everything one can. I should not dream of saying that the changes which we propose in the Bill are enough, any more than I should dream of saying that we ought not to do all we can to bring interest rates down, for example, to bring taxation rates down and to do all the other things which the right hon. Gentleman and various of his hon. Friends have dwelt upon as serious matters for anxiety on the part of small businesses.
We must do everything we can, and we must do our best to educate business men about what the Employment Protection Act does. We recognise this need, and we are in the Department currently preparing a guide for employers which should more or less coincide with the enactment of the Bill. This guide will pay particular attention to the position of smaller employers.
If I now turn to what the clause proposes and then examine what the consequences of the amendment would be, that will, I think, establish the point which I am making and which I tried to make in Committee.
In the first place, it is not right to say that the clause reverses the burden of proof. It does not. As has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Putney, the burden of proof is fairly and squarely upon the employer to show that a dismissal was for one of what we called in Committee the OK reasons—one of the four justifiable reasons. That is put fairly and squarely on him, and it marks our recognition of the special position of an employee who has been dismissed.
I do not quarrel with the point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that the employee has already been sentenced and tried by his employer. It is a vivid way of putting it, but I do not quarrel with it, and we reflect that situation by putting the burden on the employer to show, first, that it was a justifiable reason which led to the dismissal.
The trouble is that section 58 then goes on to say that the employer must show that he acted reasonably in treating that justifiable reason as a ground for dismissal, and it is this which has given rise to the belief, which reaches out very strongly, that one is guilty all the way down the line until one has proved oneself innocent.
I say at once that there are precious few cases decided in the industrial tribunals where the formal burden of proof determines the issue. There are jolly few cases in the civil courts where the burden of proof actually decides the issue. But what we are doing by the clause—if I may put it in a rather loose way—is taking off the shoulders of the employer the burden of proving that he acted reasonably in treating the OK reason as ground for dismissal. We are certainly not putting the burden on to the employee and making him show that the employer acted unreasonably. We leave it for the tribunal to decide whether the employer acted reasonably. That is putting it into the middle, and it takes away what can be seen in the terms of the existing section to be an unfair bias in the shape of the legislation. That is all that the clause does.
The second effect of the clause—we have already been reminded of this—is that it tells the tribunal in express terms that it must take into account the size and administrative resources of the firm when assessing the reasonableness of the employer's actions.
Perhaps I may risk wearying the House by reminding it that under section 57 of the 1978 Act the tribunal is already obliged to take the circumstances into account, and that means all the circumstances. Subsection (3) lays down that the question whether the dismissal was fair or unfair
 shall depend upon whether the employer can satisfy the tribunal that in the circumstances (having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case) he acted reasonably
We are therefore not saying to the tribunal that it must take into account something which it would hitherto have been entitled to disregard. What we are doing is giving special prominence to one of the circumstances by spelling it out, and that is a perfectly proper thing to do.
I do not altogether quarrel with the suggestion that this is a cosmetic change. No one has quite put it like that today, but it does not amount to very much more. There are very few circumstances in which one knows that the tribunal has not taken this into account, but the purpose of putting it in is that the layman reading the legislation will see that the tribunal must take into account among the circumstances the size and administrative resources of the firm.

Mr. Radice: If it is such a small change, why bother to make it?

Mr. Mayhew: That was a small intervention but it prevented me from coming to that very point. As I have already tried to explain, the purpose is that those who have to look at these matters as lay people, as business people, or perhaps as those in business associations giving advice, shall at least see that under this part of the legislation which deals with unfair dismissal the tribunals are enjoined to have regard to sensible every-day considerations, for example, the size and administrative resources of the undertaking.
I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, having asked the question, would be interested in the answer, but, as he knows very well, we went round this buoy at some length in Committee. I tried to deal with the matter then.
This clause does not empower tribunals to do something that most do not do at present. It may be asked why we are

going to the trouble of including this provision in the Bill. I shall provide an answer. Although the industrial tribunals are empowered to take all the circumstances into account in the way I have explained, they are not all seen to do so. Nor is it apparent to many people, who are not lawyers or substantial business men, that they are empowered to do so. It is because it is not widely or generally understood, particularly among smaller business, that this power exists that the Government believe that it should be spelt out.
6 pm
A practical example of why this may be important can be found in the guidance given by ACAS in its code of practice. The code sets out guidance on the kind of disciplinary procedures which should be followed. In paragraph 12 recommendations are given about the warnings. First, there is an oral warning, then, for a second offence, there is a written warning. A structure is built up which, in the case of a very small business, may seem to be unrealistic. We feel that it is right to make this change in order to draw attention to the fact that tribunals are not expected to apply to small businesses the kind of structure for warnings that would apply to large businesses.
We are making it clear that smaller firms are not necessarily acting unreasonably if they adopt procedures that are appropriate to their resources. I believe that this will result in a positive response from small businesses which may feel that the present code of practice is aimed only at large firms. I recognise the need to educate. I wish to make that clear, and I repeat that the Department is in the process of producing a guide which we hope will be published at the same time that the Bill is enacted.

Mr. Leighton: The Minister wants to reassure small business men, but is this the most effective way of doing so? Does he believe that small business men are waiting with bated breath for this legislation to be placed on the statute book, and that they will all rush to the Stationery Office to buy a copy and read it? I do not think that they will read it, or that the press will report it. Would it not be more efficacious to distribute a leaflet explaining these matters rather than to change the statute?

Mr. Mayhew: No, I do not suppose that they are waiting with bated breath. I recognise that we must do all we can to publicise the changes that we are making, and we shall try to do so. However, we are not in a position, as a responsible Government, to turn down any proposal that we reasonably believe will have the desired effect of encouraging companies to employ more people. In view of the high unemployment—which is expected to get worse—we must not turn aside any reasonable proposal that may result in stimulating employment. I agree that the surveys show plainly that these matters are not at the forefront of small business men's anxieties. But they are there, and we must not neglect them. However, we cannot take a survey of people who have not started a business.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Of the many circumstances that the tribunal has to take into account, why has the Minister pinpointed only two? Is there not a danger that the employee, seeing these provisions in legislation, will feel that the tribunal will give excessive weight to those circumstances over and above the others?

Mr. Mayhew: There is less chance for employees to scrutinise the legislation than for employers to do so. Since the number of circumstances which are relevant and which should be taken into account are legion, we can hardly pinpoint all of them. Therefore, a judgment has to be formed as to what needs to be emphasised. For the reasons, I have given, we believe that these circumstances are properly emphasised.
This is not an attack on anyone. It is an attempt to make the expression of the law relating to unfair dismissal in the employment protection legislation more reassuring to those to whom we look to provide employment today. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who manages to bring what he perceives as a class war into every topic that he discusses, said that this was another round in the class war and that this legislation favoured the employer class. I point out to him that, by definition, unless there is an employer class there cannot be an employee class. It is because we wish to stimulate and enlarge the number of employees that we

believe that this clause is proper, and that the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. John Grant: My right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that the policies of the Government are putting more and more businesses—particularly small firms—into difficulty. High value added tax, the minimum lending rate, charges and rates generally, the construction of order books—not least because of the public sector squeeze—combine to make life extremely difficult for small businesses. The steeply rising unemployment figures do not simply reflect a harsh regime for workers, but for many employers also. Yet the best that the Government can do in the face of that is to bring forward these lamentable measures which undermine the Employment Protection Act, which, they claim will reduce the burden on the small firm. It is all part of a pattern which is contained within the Bill. We saw part of the pattern last night when schedule 11 was replaced. That pattern will be followed when we reach the clauses on the restriction of maternity benefits, and it is being followed on this clause now.
Despite what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is an attempt to offer a sop to employers whom the Government are hurting in other ways. If it does not weaken employees' rights, why is every employees' organisation opposed to this change? The case on unfair dismissal is ill-founded. Unlike his efforts in Committee, at least the hon. and learned Gentleman is not now seeking to justify the changes by relying on evidence. He knows that he is totally unable to produce relevant evidence, and even if he could produce evidence that employers were seeking this change, I would still argue that this is a further disgraceful attack on individual workers' rights.
The Government are flying in the face of their consultative document. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman read that consultative document. It said that it was generally undesirable to give special treatment to small firms because that would create a second tier of employees with reduced protection. But that is what the Government are doing. This is an extraordinary and rapid rebuttal of their views. Perhaps a funny thing happened to the Secretary of State on his way to the Cabinet, or, as is more


likely, a funny thing happened to him when he arrived. It is a very quick change of view.
Workers in small firms most need protection. If that is not so, why are there wages councils to look after the minimum wages and conditions of about 3 million workers?
That need has been recognised by successive Governments. Even though we know of the difficulties which are experienced—under-payment and so on—one matter which is again causing concern is the apparent intention to run down the size of the Wages Inspectorate. If that happens, protection for low-paid workers will again be reduced. It is right to point out that in that area there is a lack of trade union organisation. Low-paid workers just do not have protection.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), referred to the various surveys that have been carried out—in particular, the ORC survey. I do not intend to dwell on that. He also referred to the Warwick university industrial relations research unit's study. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) quoted the GLC document, which I too, have received. There is ample evidence to show that these are not matters of paramount importance to employers. They are very much down the list.
There has been a great deal of criticism of the Government's proposals, particularly that the tribunals have to take into acount size and administrative resources. The Association of County Councils—a Tory-dominated body if ever there was one—is opposed to the Government's proposals. The Royal College of Nursing, the Migrants Action Group and the Equal Opportunities Commission are concerned because many women work in small firms. All these organisations have made written protests about these proposals.
We know that the Under-Secretary of State wrote to some of the small firms' pressure groups, as it were, to whip up support for the proposals. The National Federation of the Self-Employed, for instance, said that the Employment Protection Act had damaged 50 per cent. of its members. Of course, 98 per cent. of the membership did not reply to the questionnaire. Therefore, not a very meaningful

result was produced. We had other similar unrepresentative examples, with which I shall not weary the House, but they were trotted out in Committee.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) asked the valid question: what encouragement are these changes to people to work for small firms where they know that their rights are to be lessened? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) made a similar point. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) pointed out that there will be a tendency for trade unions to steer their members away from this area of employment.
There is also the matter of the onus of proof. It is a fact—again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster touched on this matter in his opening remarks—that only the employer is likely to know the full reason for dismissal. That is why it has always been for the employer to satisfy the tribunal that it was fair dismissal. It is the worker who gets the chop. That is the situation when it reaches the tribunal. The action has been taken by the employer, not the employee.
We have no real evidence that the system has been working unsatisfactorily. I do not recall the Under-Secretary at any stage telling us about any advice that he had received from the members or the chairmen of tribunals on this matter. I should have thought that would have been the first place to look for advice on the satisfactory nature of the working of this feature of the legislation.
We cannot take these proposals in isolation. They must be seen in conjunction with clause 7, to which we shall come later, which takes away the right of complaint of unfair dismissal from all new recruits to firms with 20 or fewer workers until they have worked continuously for the firm for two years. They must also be taken in conjunction with the changes introduced by the Government last July extending the qualifying period of service from six months to 12 months for all employees.
This is a package. It is not fine tuning, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) put it. It is far from fine tuning. It is a very nasty package.
6.15 pm
The Under-Secretary said that these latest changes were being made for psychological reasons. I think that he probably did not use the word " psychological " this afternoon—perhaps he was careful not to use it—but he used it in Committee. The implication of his remarks was that it would not have much effect in law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not put it quite like that, but the idea was that it would make employers feel that the Government had in some way given them another boost. That is, in effect, what he said. But I wonder whether he seriously believes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East pointed out, that employers are waiting to seize on this measure and that it will influence them. If the Government think that, I can only suggest that they do not know how small firms work. I do not know of any small employers—there are many in my constituency—who are interested in the fine tuning of the legislation.
I welcome the news that the Department is to issue a new guide—I am sure that it must do so as a consequence of the Bill—but I cannot help feeling that the guide should be a guide to where to find a lawyer. At any rate, I welcome the fact that the Department is making this additional educative effort. However, I do not think that employers will be unduly concerned about it in the sense that the Under-Secretary has put it.
We can only assume that the Government hope that these unfair dismissal procedures will act as a sweetener for traditional Tory voters in the small firms sector—traditional voters who must be turning away in droves at the moment as a result of this and other Government policies. It is almost as crude as that.
I want to refer to some figures that I have taken from the Employment Gazette, because they prove the case for the legislation as it is being maintained. Indeed, I think that it is fair to suggest that, if these changes are made,

they are likely to result in increased industrial action.

The statistics for the years 1973 to 1979 show that stoppages arising from dismissal and disciplinary matters have steadily fallen from 383 in 1973—that accounted for 7·3 per cent. of all workers directly involved in total stoppages for that year—to 197 stoppages in 1979—or 2·9per cent. of all workers directly involved in stoppages last year. That shows that the unfair dismissal procedures have been working increasingly satisfactorily. It is also a fact that just under two-thirds of unfair dismissal applicants can be regarded as low paid. The majority are certainly from the low paying industries. Once again, in tampering with this legislation, we are talking about the most vulnerable workers.

In the end we come back to two basic points. First, dismissal is either fair or unfair. It is as simple as that. No diversionary discriminatory legislation about size and administrative resources should cut across that position. Justice should not be measured on the basis of some arbitrarily chosen yardstick to suit the convenience of either the Government or employers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster said, we are talking about the sack—people's livelihood

Finally, the Government are clearly seeking to play footsie with the employers' organisations which, as I said, are daily becoming more disenchanted with the Government in other ways and will soon start to say that openly. The Government are hoping that, by making life more difficult for working people by restricting their rights, they will, as it were, redress the balance a little. We are talking about dirty work by the Government. Therefore, we shall certainly divide the House on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 312.

Division No. 262]
AYES
[6.20 pm


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Ashton, Joe
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bradley, Tom
Campbell-Savours, Dale




Canavan, Dennis
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert


Cant, R. B.
Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Homewood, William
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Horam, John
Prescott, John


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Huckfield, Les
Race, Reg


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Radice, Giles


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Richardson, Jo


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Hon Greville
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Cook, Robin F.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, George


Crowther, J. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Sever, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Short, Mrs Renée


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Dixon, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Dormand, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Snape, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Soley, Clive


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Dubs, Alfred
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


Eastham, Ken
Maclennan, Robert
Straw, Jack


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McMahon, Andrew
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


English, Michael
McNally, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, John (Newton)
McWilliam, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Ewing, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tilley, John


Fitt, Gerard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Torney, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Maxton, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Forrester, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Foster, Derek
Meacher, Michael
Watkins, David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Whitehead, Phillip


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Wigley, Dafydd


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Graham, Ted
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth. Ian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Sheila


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton East)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Haynes, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Hotter, Eric S.
Parker, John
Mr. George Morton.


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bell, Sir Ronald
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian
Bradford, Rev R.


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Michael
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bright, Graham


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Best, Keith
Brinton, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brittan, Leon


Arnold, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bowden, Andrew
Bryan, Sir Paul







Buck, Antony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Budgen, Nick
Heddle, John
Parkinson, Cecil


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry
Parris, Matthew


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butler, Hon Adam
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pawsey, James


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Penhaligon, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Pollock, Alexander


Channon, Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, George


Chapman, Sydney
Howells, Geraint
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cockeram, Eric
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Raison, Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corrie, John
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim


Costain, A. P.
King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Cranborne, Viscount
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams. Sir Brandon


Critchley, Julian
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Crouch, David
Lang, tan
Ridsdale, Julian


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Dover, Denshore
Lee, John
Rossi, Hugh


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Dunlop, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Salisbury, Hon Timothy


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Eggar, Timothy
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Elliott, Sir William
Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Silvester, Fred


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sims, Roger


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McQuarrie, Albert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Major, John
Speller Tony


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marland, Paul
Spence, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, lain


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Squire, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freud, Clement
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony


Fry, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mellor, David
Stokes, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry
Monro, Hector
Thompson, Donald


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moore, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Trippier, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'II)
Myles, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hastings, Stephen
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nott, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek







Waller, Gary
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Dennis
Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ward, John
Wickenden, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Warren, Kenneth
Wiggin, Jerry



Watson, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

DISMISSAL RELATING TO TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP

Mr. John Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 7, line 22, leave out ' unfair if ' and insert

' fair unless he can prove that '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this, we may take the following amendments:

No. 113, in page 7, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert
' unless the industrial tribunal is satisfied that the employees reason or if more than one, she principal reason for not being a member of the specified union or one of the specified unions or for refusing or proposing to refuse to become or remain a member of that or one of these unions, was unreasonable '.

No. 108, in page 7, line 23, leave out from ' if to ' to ' in line 24 and insert
on reasonable grounds he objects '.

No. 49, in page 7, line 23, after 'he', insert
can prove to the tribunal that he '.

No. 50, in page 7, line 23, after 'of, insert ' long-standing',

No. 52, in page 7, line 23, leave out '
or other deeply-held personal conviction'.

No. 51, in page 7, line 23, after ' other ', insert ' long-standing'.

No. 54, in page 7, line 25, leave out
' whatsoever or of a particular trade union '

and insert
' and can satisfy the tribunal that his objections were reasonable in all the circumstances '.

Mr. Evans: As we had a fair run round clause 6 in Committee, I shall, in the interests of saving time, be reasonably brief, but as the clause is one of the nuttier parts of an unnecessary Bill, it is right to raise again the issues involved in it.
It is the sort of clause that is put in to placate the wilder spirits in the Conservative Party, some of whom have unfortunately,

managed to get elected to the House. A similar provision was included in the Industrial Relations Act and employers and trade unions generally ignored the Act's attempts to outlaw the closed shop, which is the basis of the clause.
As democrats, we recognise that the Conservatives won the election and have the right to put the legislation before the House. We have tried to point out its dangers, but the Tories have decided to go ahead with the Bill, which will cause untold harm.
We therefore have a duty to tighten up the loose drafting in parts of the Bill, especially in clause 6. That is what the amendments are aimed at. We are concerned about the impossible task facing the tribunals that will have to consider the cases outlined in clause 6.
Almost everyone recognises that industrial tribunals have done a first-class job in often difficult and sometimes emotional circumstances. Anything that will make their task more difficult should be avoided, and clause 6 will make their job virtually impossible.
In Committee, we repeatedly pointed out to the Government some of the dangers involved in trying to define a " deeply-held personal conviction " and how long it had been held by an individual. One of my hon. Friends said that he visualised tribunals having to employ psychiatrists, lie detectors, truth drugs and a variety of new instruments to find out for how long an individual had held his " deeply-held personal conviction ".
We all accept the spirit of a religious exemption and the trade union movement has managed to meet any difficulties in that area over the years. That should have been recognised by the Government, but they have tried to rewrite a section of the Industrial Relations Act to undermine the closed shop in order to placate some of their wilder spirits.
We wish to redefine some of the words in clause 6. We discovered in Committee that when the Under-Secretary had a weak case he invariably argued it


at inordinate length. When his case was strong he was sharp and to the point, but when he was on weaker ground he took a tremendous amount of time to try to avoid our arguments. He avoided most of our arguments on clause 6.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
 In the final analysis, it will be for a tribunal to determine on the facts of any particular case whether an individual's objections to union membership constitute grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1980, c. 790.]
It remains a mystery to us how a tribunal is to do that.

Mr. Mellor: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it is any more difficult for a tribunal to deal with that matter than it is for it to deal with the tests, to which he lends his support, in section 58 of the 1978 Act which refers to genuine objections on grounds of religious beliefs? What is the difference between the two concepts?

Mr. Evans: It is fairly easy for an individual to prove that he is a longstanding member of the Jehovah Witnesses, Plymouth Brethren or another religious organisation, the members of which are not prepared to join a trade union. I have not met a member of any of the more mainstream religious organisations who feels that his religious beliefs debar him from membership of a trade union.
As a convener, I have dealt with individuals who have joined the Jehovah Witnesses. We all know what sort of conversion they feel that they have had when they join such an organisation. It is relatively easy to prove that an individual is a member of such an organisation. For example, he could provide a card or take his religious leader with him to the tribunal. But let us suppose that an individual announces at the factory one morning that in bed on the previous night he had walked his road to Damascus and arrived at the " deeply-held personal conviction" that he did not want to belong to the AUEW or any other union. How can one disprove that he has arrived at that point? It will be an impossible task for a tribunal to make sense of the provisions in clause 6.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
 We believe that a tribunal will not in practice have difficulty in determining whether there is a ground of conscience or a deeply held conviction in the circumstances likely to arise.
Will the Minister tell us what circumstances would be likely to arise? He went on to say:
 In widening the current religious exemption in the way the clause does, we do not intend that leeway should be given to any sort of spurious objection that could result in industrial disruption by the undermining of well established agreements. We believe that the intention is made clear in the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 20 February 1980, c. 791.]
It is not made clear in the clause. The chances are that the individual who has a " road to Damascus" conversion will be the type of individual who exists in all walks of life, the person who is looking for easy money. Sums of money up to £16,000 per case are involved. The crimes of murder, rape, arson and inflicting grevious bodily harm have been committed for much less than £16,000. A number of individuals will be tempted down this road for the sake of the jackpot that lies at the end of it.
Not every member of a trade union is a devout Socialist who believes in all the activities of the trade union movement. There are individuals who join a union because of the benefits they will derive from membership, and there are individuals who would like to enjoy those benefits without contributing to the trade union funds. This causes bitter feeling among trade union members who pay their dues. They are not willing to allow others to live off their backs. If the clause adds insult to injury by allowing an individual to make a substantial sum of money out of his union because he has had a death-bed conversion to non-unionism it is likely to cause great problems within industry and the trade union movement. We think that the clause is unnecessary and will cause problems. We have tried to make some sense of the clause by tabling our amendments.

Amendment No. 53 is self-explanatory. It will be for the individual who is appearing before a tribunal to prove that he has this deeply held personal conviction or strong beliefs as to why he


should not be a member. That is probably the best of the amendments and one that the Minister will be able to accept. It is right that the burden of proof should be upon the individual who is seeking to make substantial sums of money out of this situation.

In amendment No. 49, again the onus is placed on the individual to prove his case. I will not go through the amendments in detail but the thrust of the amendments is to say that it will be for the individual who has arrived at this deeply-held personal conviction to prove his case.

We feel that we have a right to know from the Government what is meant by " deeply-held conviction " in the context of the clause. Those words will cause problems and industrial disputes. They are unhelpful to the employer, the employee and the trade union.

Amendment No. 54 deletes words which we regard as particularly dangerous. An individual employed in a firm in which, for example, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers has negotiating rights can say that he has no objection to being a member of a trade union, but he has a deeply-held personal objection to being a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Hon. Members will have read in the press that there has been a change in the make-up of the national committtee of my union. Someone might take the view that as the make-up of the national committee has changed he does not wish to be a member of that union but would prefer to be a member of another union, but that other union would not necessarily have negotiating rights in that establishment.

It is significant that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in his amendments also wishes to take out the words " deeply-held personal conviction " and " grounds of conscience ". I do not know what would be the effect of his amendments. I do not imagine that he wants to go as far as we do, but he recognises the dangers that would flow from the words in clause 6. We shall be interested to see whether he will support us in the Lobby if the Government do not accept his amendments.

I recognise that the Secretary of State has had difficulties with the Bill. He has

had more difficulties with his own side than he has with the Opposition. He had a majority of three, and four on the rare occasions when the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was present in Committee. Although the Secretary of State had a substantial majority in Committee, the situation has changed since the Bill has been discussed in the House. In the House, the Secretary of State's arguments have won the day for the Conservative Party. He contained the so-called revolt last night in a handful of 45. Now that he recognises that he has far more power and influence in the Conservative Party than he realised in Committee, I hope he will accept the helpful amendments which we are putting forward to remedy the difficulties which will arise from clause 6.

I hope that we can rely on the Secretary of State to see the force of our arguments and to appreciate the dangers which will flow from what he is creating in this clause. I know that words are always emotive to the Tory Party, just as they are to people such as myself. However, there is no question but that clause 6 is a charter for scabs and blacklegs. It is a charter for those who seek to benefit from institutions without ever wishing to contribute a penny towards them. I am sure that Conservative Members will accept that from time to time the trade union movement deals with that sort of individual, who invariably is always on the look-out for fast money, who never contributes to anything and who simply takes whatever is given to him. This clause has been created for his benefit.

Now that the Secretary of State recognises the changed circumstances which exist within the Tory Party, and the power which he now has—I think we are seeing a resurgence of the wets and a recognition that they are far stronger than the hawks—I hope that he will accept our helpful and useful amendments.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before I deal with the amendments standing in my name, which I shall seek to support, I should like to deal with a question which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) posed. He asked whether I would support him in the Lobby. The answer is "No, manifestly not ", because the Opposition amendments are singularly mean


and show a singularly mean attitude to human liberty.
The undoubted effect of the Opposition amendments would be to reduce the class of people entitled to compensation. Indeed, they would make it more difficult for ordinary people to claim compensation when they are unfairly dismissed. The views expressed by Labour Members, and the views which underlie the amendments tabled by them, are wholly inconsistent with the views which they expressed in the debate that has just taken place on amendment No. 43. In that debate, the Opposition represented themselves as being anxious and determined to make it easier for ordinary people to claim compensation when they suffered injustice.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent our views. In the previous debate, we sought to retain the status quo and to resist the Government's intention to worsen the position of workers who claimed that they were unfairly dismissed.

Mr. Hogg: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should disavow the intention that I have ascribed to him. I was saying that in the previous debate, Labour Members were trying to protect and enhance the ability of ordinary people to claim compensation when they had been unfairly treated. Yet we find a wholly different attitude in this debate.

Mr. Mellor: I intend to make the same point myself. Does my hon. Friend recall the occasion on Second Reading, when we attacked the generality of the closed shop on the basis that it would not withstand the strictures of the European Convention on Human Rights, yet in the very week before that Labour Members attacked us because they said that our proposals on immigration offended against the European Convention on Human Rights? Surely that was a total inconsistency.

Mr. Hogg: That is a valuable point which emphasises the main burden of what I want to say. Whenever we come to the question of trade unions and the closed shop, we see sheer, unmitigated prejudice from Labour Members. The House and the country should know that.
I turn now to the two amendments which I seek to support.

Mr. Leighton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I have given way twice.

Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman is usually very generous.

Mr. Hogg: I have only just begun my speech, as the hon. Gentleman must know. In drafting the two amendments standing in my name, I sought to enlarge the class of people who, when dismissed by reason of their refusal to join a trade union, have a claim for compensation. I am extremely sorry that on this important matter I depart from the approach which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On most aspects of the Bill I am in complete sympathy with his approach. He is surely right when he argues that we should adopt a conciliatory and gradualist approach to issues which are as contentious as industrial relations. That is of particular importance with regard to the closed shop. However objectionable the concept of a closed shop may be, this House should never seek to prohibit it because we could not enforce a prohibition of that kind, and this House should never seek to pass laws which cannot be enforced in practice.
Therefore, one must ask what the appropriate approach is to problems of that kind. It is the approach which has been adopted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It has two important elements, first, to confine the circumstances in which closed shop agreements can come into existence and, secondly, and no less important, to provide a proper scheme for compensation for those relatively few people who will lose their employment because of their refusal to join a trade union.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the major defect in our right hon. Friend's approach to this problem is that he is not prepared to deal with existing closed shops? Because of his decision not to do that, it becomes necessary to look for second-best solutions to the problem of the man who is locked into a closed shop and who finds that he


has no way of disputing the decisions which are taken on his behalf.

Mr. Hogg: I always hate to dissent from the views expressed by my hon. Friend because I have a great respect for his knowledge in this area. When he made that observation, I wonder whether he fully understood the provisions of clause 6, particularly the proposed subsection (3B). I think that takes account of the pre-entry closed shop problem to which my hon. Friend has just referred me. If I am wrong on that point, I am certain that he will address the House upon it and we can consider it when he does.
The point that I am seeking to make is that in general terms I support what my right hon.. Friend has said on this issue. He is right to say that we should not try to prohibit a closed shop. Where I disagree with him is with regard to the scheme of compensation which clause 6 provides, because I personally think that it is insufficiently generous.
The main problem to which the attention of the House is now directed arises from section 58 of the 1978 Act, which was passed by Labour Members when in Government. That is a singularly brutal and unattractive piece of legislation, because in effect it says that a man or a woman dismissed by reason of a refusal to join a trade union has no right to compensation whatever unless his or her objection to joining a trade union is, first, an objection to joining all trade unions and is, secondly, an objection founded on religious conviction. I happen to believe that that is oppressive and tyrannical. It gave rise to some quite extraordinary, and I hope unintended, anomalies.
7 pm
The casebooks are full of employees dismissed for larceny, immorality, violence and abuse who obtained compensation. At the same time, honourable long-serving employees were dismissed solely because they would not join a trade union; and they had no right of redress. Such a situation was, and is, unacceptable. It was for that reason that the Secretary of State brought his present proposals forward.
The House must now seek to resolve the question whether clause 6 goes far enough. I do not believe that it does. The

effect of clause 6 is to enable a person who is dismissed for refusing to join a trade union to claim compensation provided that his refusal to join a trade union was founded
 on the grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal conviction.
That is a narrow test. Perhaps more importantly those who have to interpret and construe those criteria—and in particular industrial tribunals, employment appeal tribunals and the House of Lords, if not the court of appeal—will certainly take a restrictive approach.
The clause probably does not cover those employees who do not wish to join a trade union because they disapprove of the local or national leadership. It probably does not cover the employee who does not like the policies of affiliations of a trade union. The clause probably does not cover the employee who believes that the tactics of the union involved are disruptive of industry and the clause certainly does not cover the employee who does not choose to submerge his own personality into a collective unit.
Yet all of these things are perfectly reasonable. They provide good reasons why a person should not wish to join a trade union. But, in the end, the test is this. Why should a person have to satisfy such stringent criteria in trying to justify what should be the exercise of free will?
It was for that reason that I tabled the amendments which stand in my name. The effect of amendment No. 108 is to enable an employee who has lost his job because of his refusal to join a trade union to claim compensation provided only that his reasons for refusing to join were reasonable. That approach has received quite a lot of illustrious support in the past both within and without the House.
To begin with, we had the support for such an approach by the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Donovan. The Commission's report recommended in express terms as follows:
 Our view is that the employee should be able to succeed against the employer so long as he can show that he has reasonable grounds for refusing to join the union.
That was an express and unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. But we do not have to look so far for such support.
Words similar to those I now propose were incorporated in the 1974 Act. Indeed, they remained the law until 1976 when, despite strenuous attempts by my right hon. and hon. Friends to prevent their deletion, the words were deleted. Prominent among those who tried to prevent the deletion of those words was my hon. and learned Friend who now sits on the Government Front Bench as Under-Secretary. I shall tell the House what he said because he made a truly memorable speech. He made a speech which in the context of this debate is a pleasure to read today.
My hon. and learned Friend began by defining his general policy—a view with which I wholly agree. He said:
 It is the policy of the Government, as I understand it, to encourage all workers to join a trade union. I agree with that policy, but I agree with no more than that. The Government encourage so long as they advocate, so long as they urge, so long as they persuade and so long as they advise, but when they provide for dismissal without compensation as the price that a workman must pay for refusing to join a trade union they have passed beyond encouragement and resorted to blackmail.
Then my hon. and learned Friend became a little more specific. He said:
 The Bill is designed to make blackmail lawful. As it stands at the moment, the Act says that it shall be lawful to dismiss a worker for refusing to become a member of a specific trade union. But the Bill removes the saving clause which protects a worker who genuinely objects, on any reasonable grounds to joining that union.
Perhaps, rather uncharacteristically, my right hon. and learned Friend ended on a rather plaintive note:
 I ask the Secretary of State why, if he is prepared to make a concession for those with religious beliefs, he will not retain the concession in favour of those who have objections based upon reasonable grounds?"—[Official Report, 9 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 342–43.]
I say to my hon. and learned Friend, who is sitting so comfortably on the Front Bench, that the principles which were true in 1975 are as true today.

Mr. John Gorst: I wonder if I can help my hon. Friend—since he is naming names—by referring to what my right hon. Friend said in Committee. He told us that
At one time I thought in terms of 'reasonable' grounds. Those were the sort of grounds that we felt we should seek to

protect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1980; c. 738.]
What my right hon. Friend never told us in Committee was the reason for his departure from that standpoint. I wonder if my hon. Friend will press him to give some reasons?

Mr. Hogg: It is not for me to press the Secretary of State. I was going on to give the answer to that question because I feel certain that my hon. and learned Friend, with his track record, will wish to rise and give unqualified support to my amendment.
I turn briefly from amendment No. 108 to amendment No. 113. In amendment No. 108 I intended a fairly modest change in my right hon. Friend's proposals. On that basis I hoped that the amendment might be more acceptable to my hon. Friend.

Amendment No. 113 is intended to have a more dramatic effect. If it is accepted it will greatly enlarge the class of persons entitled to claim compensation. In such circumstances if an employee is dismissed by reason of a refusal to join a trade union he will be entitled to claim compensation unless some other party can establish that his reasons for refusing to join were unreasonable. This amendment, taken in conjunction with the various provisions in clause 6 will largely eliminate and remove the evils associated with the closed shop.

Mr. Richard Needham: Will my hon. Friend tell the House the circumstances in which he envisages that the amendment, if written into the Bill, will be used? As I understand it, clause 6 comes into operation only for new closed shops. All existing employees are excluded. When a new closed shop agreement is made, it comes about after a ballot and in circumstances in which any existing employee is automatically excluded. We are talking not about a person's refusal to join a union. If there has been a ballot and it is a new closed shop, that closed shop could not have come into being with existing members being forced in against their will, whether on reasonable grounds, grounds of conscience or any other grounds. They would be excluded because of their being existing employees. Therefore, in what circumstances does my hon. Friend say that the amendment will be used? It seems that


those whom he seeks to protect are already protected by being existing employees.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is an ingenious man. He has raised an ingenious argument, which I have already thought about, I shall deal with it in specific terms because it is important.

Mr. Budgen: Mr. Budgenrose——

Mr. Hogg: No. I have given way on five occasions and I do not propose to do so any more. However, I shall deal with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham).
I deal briefly with the various arguments that have been advanced against amendments of this type. In view of the speech made in 1975 by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), who is now the Under-Secretary of State, I do not have to argue that the amendments are unworkable. If they were not unworkable in 1975, they are not unworkable now.
It is said that the amendments are unnecessary because they do not deal with the real problem. That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. My hon. Friend suggests that no one would lose his job in the circumstances that he postulates. He is wrong. There will be a small number of employees who, after the implementation of a closed shop agreement, join the union and who subsequently decide to leave it. The class is a small one, but the law should be as quick to protect the few as it is to protect the many.

Mr. Budgen: Mr. Budgenrose——

Mr. Hogg: No. I have given way a great deal and I do not propose to give way again.
The second argument which is usually advanced by Labour Members is that it is morally culpable for those who derive some benefit from trade union negotiations not to join the trade union. I have always taken the view that that is an unmeritorious argument. It fails on two grounds. First, what do we say to those who suffer unemployment and poverty as a result of trade union practices? Even more to the point, what do we say about democracy itself? Democracy implies

choice. It implies the right to choose the least worthy course as well as the most worthy course. That is an essential element in democracy.
7.15 pm
The final objection is based on convenience. It is suggested that it is convenient to have a trade union closed shop. Convenient it may be, but it is oppressive. The amendments that I seek to support do not abolish the closed shop. They merely put a price upon it. The price is the liability to compensate those persons who lose their job as a result of it.
We cannot assert an unqualified right to association unless we concede a right to non-association. The arguments, the logic and the principles that require the one also demand the other. To deny people the right to claim compensation when they are dismissed merely because of a refusal to join a trade union is to perpetuate an injustice to which the House should not be a party.

Mr. George Park: From time to time every political party finds itself stuck with superficially attractive slogans that are passed on, if the party becomes the Government, to an unfortunate Minister who has to endeavour to put flesh on their bones.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been witnessing the endeavours of the Secretary of State to put some thinking into a slogan to give it reality. During the debate there has been a conflict between theory and practice. We saw it last night, and we are witnessing it again today. It is a conflict involving those who are dealing with something in theory, who are anxious, as I understand it, and if I understood the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to have justice before the law. That is a laudable objective, but one which in practice, should be dealt with long before it reaches that stage. That is what has happened for many years.
We hear Conservative Members waxing righteous about the rights of a small minority. In the course of doing that they are prepared to ignore, or to push to one side, the views of the majority. However, we are all in this place as a result of the exercise of that operation, namely, the use of a majority.
I wonder what the reactions of Conservative Members would be if, in their anxiety to please one or possibly two out of thousands of employees in a given factory, they found that the vast majority were saying " We do not want to work with those who do not want to belong to the union ". That is precisely the reaction that one meets.
In my experience, closed shops are not set up arbitrarily. They are set up after full consultation and with the agreement, expressed by a majority, of the employers in the establishment. There is the opportunity for individuals to advance their points of view.
Again, in my experience, it is only on odd occasions that someone finds that he is prevented from joining a trade union because of genuine religious beliefs. I have always found that members of trade unions are willing to accommodate such a person by allowing him, for example, to pay the equivalent of his trade union dues to a charity. I have known that happen time and time again.
Judgment is based on the observation of the members of the trade union of the depth of the individual's religious belief. They see him day after day. They notice how he acts. They notice his speech especially. If they come to the conclusion that he, or she, has deeply-held religious beliefs, they will not want to be awkward with that person. An arrangement is arrived at whereby the individual does not take on the mantle of the others, who are free-riders.
That is what they amount to, because they are prepared to take the benefits negotiated by trade unions, but are not prepared to make a contribution towards the unions. The acceptance of people's religious views and beliefs is based on the experience of their workmates. Where they are genuine, people are prepared to accommodate them. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, it will provide a charter for those who wish to take the benefits but not to contribute.
I have not heard many complaints from managements about closed shops. The idea that there are such complaints has been generated at Tory Party annual conferences. Managements can negotiate sensibly with their employees. Conservative Members should stop and con-

sider what would happen if managements were forced to negotiate not only with the unions but with a variety of other people about their wages and conditions. Conservative Members say that they are concerned about time wasting and about costs, yet they are cheerfully prepared for personnel departments, wages departments and works managers to spend hours and weeks negotiating with individuals. If managements were willing to go through with that charade they would end up with the same deal as had been negotiated with the trade unions. The important difference is that those individuals would not have paid their dues.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend tell us, from his great industrial experience, whether he has ever come across anyone who has said that his principles would not allow him to join the appropriate trade union and that therefore he could not take advantage of the hours and conditions that the union had negotiated?

Mr. Park: I regret that I have never found anyone who was not prepared to hold out his hand at the end of the week and accept those benefits.
Concern has been expressed about democracy. Last night concern was expressed about secret ballots, and it was said that we should know the wishes of the workers before allowing a dispute to take place. However, Conservative Members will disregard a ballot that shows that the majority wish to have a closed shop. They think that it is all right to accept the wishes of the majority in one instance, but not in another. They should make up their minds about what they wish to do. If one aim of an employment Bill is to improve industrial relations, the Secretary of State should—as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) said—give full consideration to the amendment that has been put forward in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Clause 6 will lead not to better industrial relations but to acrimony on the shop floor. If the Secretary of State is true to himself and to his softly-softly approach, he will go along with the idea that those who are genuinely religious can be accommodated on the shop floor. He will agree that there is no need to


write such provisions as these into the letter of the law.

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out the extraordinary way in which Opposition Members are able to forget their pronouncements on almost every other topic. It is tempting to follow my hon. Friend down that road but I do not wish to detain the House.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) spoke with measured contempt about minorities. If he were to hear from a Conservative Member about a minority of sexual deviants, criminals or social security scroungers, he and his hon. Friends—who listened so complacently to his remarks—would be on their feet and foaming at the mouth in a way that is only too familiar to my hon. Friends. I am amazed that they cannot grasp the fact that one cannot pick and choose the freedoms to be allowed in a free society.

Mr. Park: I had not wished to give the impression—if I did so, I regret it—that I was contemptuous of minorities. That is far from the truth. I was trying to convey the point that there was no need for the provision because those with genuine religious conviction could be catered for by those who knew that they held such beliefs.

Mr. Mellor: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall return to the question of religion later, as I had intended. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) properly put the view, strongly held by some on the shop floor, that there is bitter resentment about those who will not join trade unions. I accept that. However, should the law pander to that resentment any more than to the resentment that many people feel about " easy-riders? " There are many " easy-riders " in almost every aspect of human affairs. However, is not the price of a free society the freedom of some to opt out? Is not the price that we have to pay the freedom of some to refuse to join their union and yet to take all the advantages that that membership confers? Once one starts to breach that type of freedom, one is on a slippery slope.
The drafting of new clause 6 is a consequence of the narrowness of clause 58 of the Employment Protection Act. It allows an exemption only on the narrow

ground that the employee genuinely objects because of his religious beliefs. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) is not in the Chamberer, because he seems to believe so strongly in the class bias of judges. It is interesting that the courts have given a restrictive definition of that phrase. It affects those who seek to argue that they have a proper ground for objecting to membership of a trade union. A court will not accept the individual's perception of his religious belief. It will invite the individual to say which religion he subscribes to, and it will then consider whether that religious group prohibits trade union membership. In a free society, why should that be the only reason for not compelling someone to join a union? I can think of no logical argument to support that provision.
I welcome two aspects of clause 6. It gets away from the belief that religion is the be-all and end-all of the issue. The grounds of objection have been widened to include conscience not restricted by religion, " or other deeply-held personal conviction ". Indeed, it goes further and deals with the question whether the test should be subjective or objective. Are we concerned with the passionate, if misguided and mistaken belief of the individual, or are we concerned with whether that belief is an objective ground and a reasonable basis for saying that one will not be a member?
I disagree in one respect with the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham. By injecting the word " reasonable " an objective test will once again be imposed on an issue that I believe should he purely subjective. There are no doubt other objections to that word and I apprehend that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will refer to them and to the difficulties which judges may experience. I am happy to support the proposal affecting subsection (2) because it will allow an individual to make up his mind.

Mr. John Evans: It is interesting to hear Conservative barristers-at-law going through the question of the rights of individuals. Will the hon. Member concede that particularly in industrial relations, where I accept that the rights of the individual are important, the rights


of the majority are equally important? Do they not have a right to refuse to work with any individual who is not prepared to join their organisation?

Mr. Mellor: I do not think that that is the point that we are dealing with. The question that concerns us is the basis on which a man's employment can be terminated. My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt with that in the provisions that they have laid down for payment of compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said so effectively, it is extraordinary that thieves and people of that sort can walk off a job with compensation from an industrial tribunal, but someone whose only crime was that he did not join a trade union must leave a job that he may have held for decades empty handed. Also, the hon. Member must agree that we are all responsible for the legal consequences of our actions. If the work force refuses to work with a particular individual, there can be no objection to its union's paying, and not the employer, at the end of the day when the matter comes to the tribunal.

Mr. Richard Page: Is it not a fact that person joins a company for employment and not to become a trade union member?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, that is absolutely right. As someone who has two grandparents who are members of the National Union of Railwaymen, I find it most distasteful that the trade unions should pursue this wretched vendetta against individuals. When they say that these people form a tiny minority, does that not emphasise just how wretched their vendetta is? That is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. David Stoddart: Some Conservative Members are chameleons. One day they talk about minorities not being allowed to persuade the majority to take industrial action, and the following day they say that minorities should be able to go against the view of the majority. That is most peculiar. Under this Bill it will require 80 per cent. of the employees to decide that there should be a closed shop. Clearly the remaining 20 per cent—if 20 per cent. vote against it—will be a minority. I cannot understand

why the Conservatives change their minds from day to day.
Many Conservative Members and some Labour Members belong to clubs, and those clubs lay down rules, perhaps by a 50 per cent., two-thirds or 80 per cent. majority. If members will not obey the rules they are expelled from the club without compensation. Coming nearer to home, if an hon. Member refuses to obey the rules which have been laid down by a simple majority, he will be excluded for as long as he is named and he will lose his salary. There is a precedent for people having to obey the rules of the majority, and that is what happens with the closed shop.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Rubbish.

Mr. Stoddart: It is not rubbish; it is absolutely true. In a closed shop the majority have decided how they wish to conduct their affairs vis-a-vis their employers in their place of work.

Mr. Lawrence: If an hon. Member does not obey the rules of the House, he will still be a Member of Parliament; he is not expelled.

Mr. Stoddart: I have no doubt that you would be able to correct the hon. Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As long as an hon. Member refuses to obey the rules of the House and continues to be named by the Speaker, he is excluded from the premises and does not receive a salary. If the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) wants to prove it he might try to get himself named. He might make more money on television to start with, but that would not go on for long.
I have been in a trade union all my life. I have negotiated at local, regional and national level. I know well that the people who refuse to belong to a trade union—and I worked in an industry where there was not a closed shop—are not backward in coming forward for the conditions of service and the rates of pay that have been negotiated for them. My guess is that in any situation where the qualification for receiving a negotiated increase in wages or improved conditions of service is that a person should be a member of the negotiating trade union the secretary of that union would be killed in the rush to join.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member says that it is morally reprehensible for people to derive benefits from negotiations and not to join the union. Is it not the essence of democracy that people should be free to choose, and to choose between the less worthy as well as the worthy? Is not the choice for them?

Mr. Stoddart: That may well be. In all societies where there are rules laid down by the majority there are penalties for the minority who will not obey the rules. Take the case of the rules we make in this House by way of legislation. The penalties can be very severe. For example, we say that a person must have a driving licence. Perhaps a minority do not think that they need to have a driving licence, but because we believe that we have a majority in the country, and certainly a majority in this House, we have laid it down that they must have one and there is a penalty if they do not.
The same situation applies in the closed shop. There is a penalty which is agreed, not only by employees, but by employers as well.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Perhaps the hon. Member could help me. I attended the inquiry which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, North (Mr. Gorst) when Mr. Arthur Scargill was answering questions. Mr. Scargill made it quite clear that he regarded it as a matter of personal conscience that he had the right to break and stand up against what he considered to be an unjust law. He felt that that was right in a democracy. When another of my hon. Friends referred to the deeply-held personal convictions of people who did not wish to join a closed shop, Mr. Scargill said that he did not know what " deeply-held personal convictions " meant. He was well aware what it meant when he was to take a decision on whether to obey a law of Parliament, yet he seemed unclear about its meaning when another individual wanted to disregard his rules. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to comment on that.

Mr. Stoddart: I shall not answer for Arthur Scargill. He must answer for himself. I was explaining that rules are made. There is a penalty for not obeying those rules. That applies in the closed shop as it does in many other situations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to dwell on the example, for instance, of lawyers, barristers and solicitors? A Birmingham barrister recently appeared before a disciplinary hearing. If the hearing had gone against him, he would have been disciplined and lost his livelihood. Does not my hon. Friend think it interesting that lawyers should be sitting comfortably in the Chamber, organising the tightest and most lucrative closed shop in the world while pontificating about workers trying to organise themselves to obtain decent working conditions that do not match up to one-tenth of the income of some parasitic lawyers?

Mr. Stoddart: I was coming to that. It is a well-known fact that one of the tightest closed shops exists within the legal profession.

Mr. Mellor: Mr. Mellorrose——

Mr. Stoddart: I cannot give way. Time is getting on, and other hon. Members wish to speak. I have given way a good deal. I think I should proceed to conclude my speech.
The fact is that the legal profession operates a closed shop. If a lawyer will not belong to the requisite professional association, he can lose his livelihood.

Mr. Mellor: Mr. Mellorrose——

Mr. Stoddart: I have said that I shall not give way. I cannot see why Conservative Members will not recognise the similarity of the situation. Chameleonlike, they support the one and oppose the other. The closed shop is recognised by employers and employees and trade unions alike to be an efficient way of conducting negotiations within a given situation. In my experience, employers are most happy when they know those with whom they are negotiating and know that they speak on behalf of all, or at least a great majority of employees. That is important both from the employer's and the employee's point of view. It is efficient. The very fact that many employers encourage the closed shop makes that point for itself.

Mr. Peter Snape: Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)rose——

Mr. Stoddart: I have said that I shall not give way. It would be unfair if I


were to give way to one of my hon. Friends. I want to show the House that I am a fair man. On that note, I conclude my remarks.

Mr. Harold Walker: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I am provoked to do so by the deliberately misleading remarks of Conservative Members who, I suspect, wish to misrepresent the Opposition's position. Echoing the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I recall saying yesterday that there was nothing more nauseating or absurd in this House than the spectacle of lawyers denouncing the closed shop.

Mr. Mellor: Mr. Mellorrose——

Mr. Walker: I should be allowed at least to complete my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) fulminates in a hysterical denunciation of the denial of compensation for someone dismissed for refusing to belong to a trade union. It strikes me as extraordinary that 10 years ago Conservative Members were not in the least interested in providing compensation for unfair dismissal. It was Barbara Castle who laid the basis for statutory provision for unfair dismissal. There were no expressions of concern from Conservative Members about providing compensation for people unfairly dismissed.
7.45 pm
I hope that I may be forgiven for echoing words that I have used in Standing Committees. I used them deliberately. They indicate that the Opposition have a different approach from that attributed to us by Conservative Members in relation to this clause. I do not regard the closed shop as an article of faith within the trade union movement. I understand the reasons why workers seek what arc now called " union membership agreements ". I use that phrase carefully and deliberately. There is a great deal of difference. The concept of the union membership agreement was intended to be much wider than that usually associated with the idea of a closed shop.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 was deliberately framed in a way that enabled union membership agreements to be applied with flexibility and tolerance. As the responsible

Minister, often from the Government Dispatch Box, I appealed for closed shops and union membership agreements to be practised in a flexible and tolerant way. I can recall being especially critical on at least one occasion of a union membership agreement that I felt had not been applied in the flexible and tolerant way that I had hoped.
I am the first to recognise—perhaps in a way that is not recognised by Conservative Members—that we are dealing with a difficult and sensitive matter. Much though some of the behaviour seen in the pursuant and practice of union membership agreements is to be regretted, I doubt whether changes in behaviour can be brought about by altering or tinkering with the law. I have referred previously to the wise views of Lord Blakenham when, as John Hare, Minister of Labour, he made the point in 1961 that Acts of Parliament seldom make men good. It is a fallacy to believe that human behaviour can be changed merely by altering the law.

Mr. Gorst: I have always assumed that the right hon. Gentleman is a good international Socialist as well as a British Socialist. I have never understood why closed shops, or union membership agreements, that are not permitted in Europe are nevertheless supported by the right hon. Gentleman and his party in this country.

Mr. Walker: I referred in Standing Committee to the experience of other countries. The hon. Gentleman may have been absent then. If so, he can read the record. A submission of the British Government to the European Commission of Human Rights indicated that in a number of countries where in theory, at least, the closed shop is prohibited by law, it is practised with full vigour. The example is quoted of the United States.
I recall visiting a typical engineering factory in the United States 18 months ago. I asked the managing director what proportion of his work force was unionised. He replied that all had to be members of the UAW. He added: " That is a goddam condition of employment"—if Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will forgive the expression. I said "Do you mean that you operate a closed


shop?", and he replied " I do not know what you call it, but every guy who works here has to be in the UAW ". I said " Suppose a guy drops out of the UAW?", and he said " He drops out of employment here because it is a condition of employment and he would be in breach of that". Yet it is said that the closed shop is prohibited in the United States.
I have visited factories in Western Europe where the closed shop is supposed to be prohibited, but where there are de facto closed shops. Even when closed shops were prohibited by the 1971 Industrial Relations Act they flourished as never before, with the connivance of some employers, many of whom see great benefit in a closed shop.
That is not my purpose in addressing the House. My purpose is to recognise the difficulties. One must recognise the compelling strength of the arguments about the sense of solidarity, the objections to the free-rider and the group conscience of workers, which is demonstrated nowhere more than in the mining industry. I shall not mention the national trade union official's name in the coal mining industry who, when asked his view of the closed shop, said " Closed shop? I am not bothered one way or t'other. But I can tell you this. No one will go down the pit without an NUM card." Miners whose lives are at risk underground depend on the solidarity of their colleagues. They will not work with men who are not coal miners.
It is sometimes said that people flagrantly defy the law. I recall the wise words of the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) who, in a letter to The Times on 12 February—I remember the date because it is my wife's birthday—said that to be effective the law must have the tacit acceptance of those to whom it applies. A few days later the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham) said something similar in an article in The Times.
As I said in Committee, if two-eyed people passed a law which discriminated against one-eyed people, who could blame the one-eyed if they made a rude Chur-chillian gesture to the law? That is what it boils down to. I am talking about the way in which we deal with these difficult problems and whether we pass laws in the belief that they will somehow solve

the problems. I do not believe that they will. We must keep chipping away, trying to persuade people and applying common sense. In Committee I quoted views that had been sent to the Secretary of State by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. That association said that the Government were approaching the problem in the wrong way and that they should act with more rigour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) was asked how he would defend the right to be exempt on religious grounds and not on the ground of " deeply-held personal conviction ". The question was whether an atheist or agnostic had the right to be exempt, and whether such a person did not have as strong a conviction as a Jehovah's Witness or a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Religious belief can be tested against some external standards. One can ask an applicant " What sect do you adhere to and how long have you been a member? ", but conscience is unrelated to religious conviction. One can hold a deep conviction for many reasons. One must look into the heart and mind of an individual. How can an industrial tribunal examine what is in a person's heart and mind?
That was the theme of the document submitted by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It said:
 The fundamental problem with conscience is that it is personal and not always entirely rational. This presents real difficulties in determining borderline cases. Although the onus will be upon the employee to demonstrate conscientious objections "—
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say whether that it is right and whether the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate consciencious objection—
 if he makes a statement under oath that he has such an objection, it will presumably be up to either members of the tribunal or to the employer to question this statement.
 This will introduce a virtually unknown element into legal proceedings. The entire thrust of English law has been to avoid questioning a man's beliefs. Even in the times of religious persecution the law was concerned with action, not thoughts.
I shall quote from another document to which I did not refer in Committee, in spite of the temptation to do so. My argument is that we should deal with the difficulties and problems not by passing laws but by applying the common sense of ordinary people who are represented by working-class organisations. In 1977 the


General Synod of the Church of England discussed this matter. I see that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is sneering. Does he wish to intervene and discredit the Church of England?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: No.

Mr. Walker: I hope that the House will accept that by using selective quotations I am not misrepresenting the Synod and its document. I am trying to be fair. I wish to show that it shares the approach that I have expressed to the House. The document states:
 In relation to closed shops in particular, we have made the point that they can only be introduced by negotiated agreement, that the parties concerned may include exemption clauses with reference to any characteristics or circumstances whatsoever and that this flexible provision could allow for objection on grounds other than religious belief, itself provided for in the Act.
In other words, the Synod says that the Act enables union membership agreements to be drafted in such a way as to cater for, and make allowance for, the difficulties to which we have referred.
The statement continues:
 With the safeguards for individuals described above, we judge that closed shops may be legitimately negotiated in our society … Indeed the churches encourage positive participation in responsible social organisations. But where such exclusive groups do exist, the mainstream Christian position should be to seek to ensure that their views are respected. We therefore welcome the exemption clause present in the 1976 Act. The fact that broader tolerance is left to the parties themselves as they establish Union Membership Agreements, is, in our view, also to be approved. It places the emphasis on the parties themselves; it places responsibility where it belongs; and it allows a flexibility in arrangement that can best suit local circumstances. We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance.
The Synod, in better and more eloquent language than I can employ, reflects the view that I put to the Committee and the House. It says:
 It is the argument of this Paper that strong democratic institutions including trade unions, which deal tolerantly with dissenting minorities, and whose power is checked by adequate social mechanisms to ensure this tolerance
[Interruption]—I keep hearing gibes, sneering and noises from the Government Benches.

Mr. Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. It is that the question would not arise if closed shops were operated responsibly by responsible unions.

8 pm

Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to or following what I have been saying. This document points out that closed shops have been in existence for many years. In fact, there has been no significant change in the law relating to the closed shop over the whole period of existence of the trade union movement.
The Church of England document which I am quoting argues exactly the case that I put to the House, that much the most sensible way to deal with the difficulties that undeniably arise is for the parties to the agreement themselves to make such arrangements as will enable a proper response to be made to those difficulties. I quote again:
 We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance ",
and the conclusion is that
 strong democratic institutions, including trade unions, which deal tolerantly with dissenting minorities, and whose power is checked by adequate social mechanisms to ensure this tolerance, are the best means of enhancing the sort of free and responsible society which we all so earnestly desire.
I believe that the essentially voluntary stance, which is supported by the Church of England, is a wiser course than the legalistic approach adopted by the Government.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Like the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), I had not intended to take part in this debate, and my speech will be short. I intervene principally because I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify for me what these amendments mean, even if he intends to advise the House to reject them.
All the arguments that I have heard this evening from the official Opposition seem in some way to indicate that if the amendments were passed the closed shop would become illegal. However, as I understand them, all that the amendments do is broaden the grounds on which one could claim compensation if one lost one's job as a consequence of a closed shop, and in no way would they do away with the


closed shop principle or make the closed shop illegal.
My views on the closed shop are well known. In Committee I moved an amendment to make the closed shop illegal, and I shall later tonight support an amendment with the object of at least trying to ensure that closed shop agreements are subjected to some sort of machinery to test the desire of employees to support them. However, whether that amendment be carried or not, it seems to me that the amendment now before us does no more than give people the opportunity on a wider basis than under the present law or under the clause as drafted to claim for unfair dismissal if they are dismissed as a consequence of a closed shop and if they refuse to join a union in that situation.
I want the Minister to make the position clear to me, because all the argument that I have heard tonight about the closed shop, about free-riders and the rest seems not to apply at this stage. We may go into those arguments later, but I should not have thought that the present amendment was the one on which to be defending the principle of the closed shop, since it would not make the closed shop illegal.

Mr. Mayhew: Not for the first time, I welcome what has been said by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), because although this has been an extremely interesting, valuable and wide-ranging debate, it is not about the principle of whether there should or should not be a closed shop as a legitimate institution under our industrial relations law. Many of my hon. Friends have acknowledge that the closed shop, distasteful though it may be and is to myself and, I believe, to virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] yes, on the most basic of libertarian grounds is something which it would be folly to try to legislate away. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) began his speech with that acknowledgement.
The hon. Member for Rochdale was absolutely right to say that amendment No. 113, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, would simply widen over and above what the clause at present provides the basis upon which

somebody could claim, and be entitled to compensation for, unfair dismissal if he were sacked for not being a member of the specified trade union where there was a closed shop agreement in existence.
It may help if I begin by saying a word or two about the structure of the clause, which deals with the closed shop and its position in our law at present, just setting the framework, moving on thereafter to explain why the amendments moved and spoken to by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) are not acceptable, in the Government's view, and also why—although it is a very different type of amendment—we do not feel able to advise the House to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
We are talking here about section 58 of the 1978 Act. The scheme of that section—subsection (3) is the one that matters—is to make it unfair to dismiss someone because of trade union membership or activities but to make it fair to dismiss for not being a union member where a union membership, as defined, is in force. The only exception applies where the employee genuinely objects on grounds of religious belief to being a member of any trade union whatsoever. In these circumstances, it is unfair to dismiss him for non-membership of the union.
The scheme of clause 6 is to enlarge the circumstances in which, where a closed shop agreement is in force, it shall be unfair to dismiss someone for non-membership of the specified union. The clause achieves that purpose by adding a new subsection. In fact, there are three new subsections, but we are dealing with only one at the moment, namely, new subsection (3A), which provides what one might call an expanded conscience clause.
Therefore, the question for our concern in this debate is not whether there ought to be provision for a closed shop agreement which, in practical terms, leads to the consequence that if somebody is sacked for not being a member of the trade union, then, if there is a closed shop agreement in existence, he shall not be entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal. There are deeply held views on either side of the House about that, but it is not the subject of the present debate. We are talking simply about


whether there ought to be any let-out—whether, in other words, the right to compensation for unfair dismissal for somebody who has been sacked for not joining a union should be restored to him in any circumstances at all.
The Employment Protection Act 1978 has, as it were, sold the pass to those who believe that there should be no exemption at all and that the will of the majority should always prevail lest free riders should get the benefits that union negotiations provide without paying the subscription.
That pass has been sold because section 58 of the 1978 Act says that if someone has religious grounds for not wanting to join the union he is entitled to compensation if he is sacked for not joining it. Therefore, the question is not one of principle at this point. It is one of practicality or of justice. Is that exemption wide enough?
Once one has accepted, as the previous Government accepted, that a subjective test ought to be applied—Has this person got a religious belief which makes it wrong, in his view, for him to join a union?—it seems to me that one has then to ask whether that is sufficiently wide. Is it the only subjective test which ought to be applied if we are to have a just law?
The view which the Government have taken—we have taken it for a very long time—is that it cannot be said that the only people with, so to say, conscientious objections which ought to be respected in this context are those with religious objections. That cannot be right. It cannot be right to say that the only people with a principled objection are those who base their objection upon religion. It cannot be said that the only people who have consciences are those who believe in one religion or another. I do not believe that I should find many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who would say that, and I am sure that I should not find any on the Benches behind me.
Therefore, it seems to us that once the pass has been sold, or, as I would choose more positively to put it, once the principle has been established that there ought to be provision for compensation for somebody who declines to join a union

notwithstanding that there is a closed shop agreement in force, one must see how it can best be done.
The debate on that aspect has been interesting. Amendments have been put forward by the hon. Member for Newton, which dealt principally with the question of verbal proof, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham who says that reasonable grounds are sufficient. The clause states that religious objection should be expanded and that it should henceforward read:
 On grounds of conscience or other deeply-held personal conviction.
We have thought a great deal about that, and it has taken us longer to reach a final conclusion on that than on almost any other feature of the Bill. It is an extremely difficult matter. We have considered the question of reasonable grounds for a long time, not least because that was the formula that the 1974 Act first relied upon. I hope, since there has been substantial quotation of what was said in Committee, that I will be forgiven for mentioning two or three points that I made then, not least because it will help me to finish my speech more quickly.
The principles on which we worked were that the objections
 certainly ought not to extend to what is trivial or transient, insubstantial or of a passing character."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 February 1980, c. 790.]
Therefore, the objection must be an objection of principle and not simply that a person does not like the area or district convener or that he does not like the newly increased subscription.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in Committee he said that a politically, deeply-held conviction would not come within the terms of a transient conviction?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not propose to repeat everything that I said in Committee, but I am prepared to repeat that I said that the political purpose of a trade union would, in certain circumstances, be accepted by a tribunal as a deeply-held personal conviction—but not necessarily. It must always be borne in mind that it is for the tribunal—based upon the advice of the TUC or CBI nominee or the independent chairman—to decide, in relation to the facts of each case whether the test set down by Parliament has been


established. We believe that the objections should not be transient, insubstantial or passing in character.
The centre of our philosophy on this clause is the notion that the individual objection must always be based on personal conviction—a conviction that is deeply felt rather than one that is toyed with, or picked up or experimental. That bears upon the point made about the time for which a person must have held his conviction. No one can say that a week is too little, or that a fortnight is enough. It is for the tribunal to determine whether the test is met. Not all deeply-held convictions are religious in nature, but I have already dealt with that point.
It might be argued that an objection on the grounds that the policy of the union would involve a member in conflict with the occupational, professional, vocational or even statutory duty binding upon him—the hon. Member for Rochdale was concerned about that in Committee—is not an objection of conscience. Yet that sort of objection should qualify for exemption. Therefore, in order to defeat that possible suggestion, conscience has to be inserted into the clause. In order to avoid uncertainty, we have added the words:
 or other deeply-held personal conviction.
8.15 pm
I understand those who say that that is imprecise. We try to be precise in the language that we use in legislation, although we generally seem to fail. Where relatively simple words are used, it is generally a mistake to use less simple words to explain them. There must be faith in the tribunals which both Labour and Conservative Governments have set up, and which we support. We believe that this is one test or set of criteria that gives rise to much anxiety in the abstract, but when one is called upon to apply it in the face of individual sets of facts it does not give rise to a great deal of difficulty. That is what is likely to occur in this case.
The amendments are grouped, but they affect different concerns. The Opposition amendments are varying in character. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 53, 49 and 54. Taken together amendments Nos. 53 and 49, put forward by the hon. Member for Newton, seek not only to provide that the employee must prove his objections before his plea is upheld,

but that he is entitled to compensation for unfair dismissal, but that his dismissal shall be regarded as fair unless he
 can prove to the tribunal that he 
genuinely objects.
That cannot have been intended, and it must be a drafting error. The guts of the amendments are that the employee must prove that which he relies upon. That is something that the employee has to do under the clause as it stands. The essence of the matter is that an employee can say that he knows that there is a closed shop agreement, but that he has a deeply-held conviction or ground of conscience which leads him not to join the union. No one can say whether he has such a conviction. He is capable of giving the best evidence, and he must do so. Therefore, there is no ground for this group of amendments. The burden of proof is, and always has to be. upon the claimant in those circumstances. I hope that the hon. Member for Newton will accept that assurance.
We discussed in Committee the form that the conscience clause should take, and I do not think that I need to say more now. The essential point is that the burden of proof is upon the complainant, and in our view there must be a much wider statement of the exemption than the words " religious grounds " provide.
I turn now to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham in support of reasonable grounds. I am always flattered when an hon. Member takes the trouble to look at a speech that I have made, but there are occasions when I wish that that were not done. My hon. Friend quoted from a speech that I made in 1975. We were discussing the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which was amending the 1974 Bill so as to take out the saving clause covering " any reasonable grounds ". It was a case of all or nothing. I could hardly be expected to go along with the Government's removal of " any reasonable ground " when there was no alternative. I said then that it was far better to have " reasonable ground " as the basis for an exemption than to have nothing. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's point. However, he stopped at a significant point. He said, when quoting from my speech:
 the Bill removes the saving clause which protects a worker who genuinely objects on any reasonable grounds to joining that union,


But my hon. Friend stopped at a comma. I went on to say:
 and we now know from Ferrybridge that there exist in real life workers who say ' We are not against joining any trade union. We are against joining or remaining in this one.' Alas, we also know what can happen to them if they are dismissed."—[Official Report, 9 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 342.]
The significance of Ferrybridge, in the context of my hon. Friend's amendment, is that the tribunal had to apply the test whether those concerned had reasonable grounds for not wishing to join the relevant union. The tribunal's reasons for giving that judgment have importance and relevance to the debate because, in paragraph 62, it said:
 The next and extremely difficult problem is as to what constitutes an objection on any reasonable grounds. There is no guidance whatsoever from Parliament on what constitutes such grounds, and we all three strongly resent being given the task of deciding this question. It is contrary to the conventions of the constitution of this country, as I understand them, for a judicial body to have to decide such a question which carries political and controversial implications. Parliament should say what are reasonable grounds—for example, religion, conscience or any other specified reason—and then a tribunal, after hearing evidence, can make their findings of fact and say whether the statutory grounds exist. Such findings would not create any doubt as to the impartiality of the tribunal who are merely applying tests laid down by the legislature.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If this omission is troubling my hon. and learned Friend, would he agree that under clause 2, which gives the Minister power to issue codes of practice, the contents of the codes of practice could include guidance on precisely this point?

Mr. Mayhew: That is right. We intend that a code of practice shall give guidance on what shall be regarded as reasonable in relation to unreasonable expulsion or exclusion from a union.
We are dealing with a much wider area. We are dealing with the grounds upon which somebody may not wish to belong to a trade union. It is important that the tribunal, which found for the Ferrybridge six, thought it right to set out the grounds for what it described as its resentment at being left without any steer. I agree that we could, through a code of practice, give a steer. However, the important point is that the concept of

reasonable grounds imports an objective test into something that is essentially subjective, because we are talking about something that is generally based upon conscience.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I am following the Under-Secretary's line of argument very carefully. Would he use the same approach to a lawyer or to a doctor who refused to join his professional organisation?

Mr. Mayhew: I would use it in relation to any closed shop. I do not want to take up the time of the House on an irrelevance, but so many hon. Members have referred to the Bar that I suppose they regard it as relevant. Curiously, I noticed that in the speech that I made in 1975 I made the point that, although I belong to my trade union—the General Council of the Bar—I do not have to do so. I can practice at the Bar if I do not belong to the General Council of the Bar. Indeed, I believe that quite a proportion of people do not belong to it.
What hon. Members are confusing is that, in order to practice at the Bar I had to pass an examination—which, happily, was of a much lower standard than it is nowadays—but that is for the protection of the public. They are also confusing the fact that, if I put a foot wrong, I can be disciplined by the disciplinary procedures of the Bar, just as chemists, doctors and dentists can be disciplined by their organisations, and I can be sued for negligence. Lest it be said that the internal disciplinary procedures make it a closed shop, I should point out that there is always a right of appeal to the judges. [Interruption.] There are many instances where an appeal to the judges produces a more just result than applies with disciplinary proceedings in many trade unions and other bodies. I do not mind what the truth of the matter might be one way or the other, but—and I correct the record for the sake of accuracy—the Bar does not constitute a closed shop.
We are confronted with making a difficult and serious decision. We recognise not only that the closed shop should continue as a lawful institution in our statute law, but that there has to be some conscience clause and that it must be adequately wide. It is not wide enough in the 1978 Act, and the purpose


of clause 6 is to enlarge and widen it. We must give a sufficiently clear guideline to the tribunals which will try and determine these cases.
I ask my hon. Friends to accept that the phrase " reasonable grounds ", about which we thought quite a lot, is not sufficiently precise. That is exactly what the tribunal in the Ferrybridge case said. Therefore, acknowledging how difficult a decision this is and how impossible it is to be absolutely sure that we have it right, I invite my hon. Friends to say that, on balance, the formula in clause 6 is the best one and, accordingly, to reject the amendments and support the clause.

Mr. John Evans: I shall be brief as I recognise that the House wants to come to a decision on this amendment.
At the outset of my remarks, I said that in Committee we learnt that whenever the Under-Secretary of State had a weak case he tended to expand the length of his speech in direct proportion to the weakness of his argument. He has done that again tonight. He has not answered any of the questions that were posed in the debate.
I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), who made excellent speeches and whose views I share—like me, they are sponsored Members—will not expect me to repeat the points that they made. But it is interesting that, as in Committee, the Under-Secretary refused to touch with a barge pole what was involved in a " deeply-held personal conviction ". As he said in Committee, it will be left to the tribunals to evaluate what that means. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal with the type of people who would be appointed to the tribunals and what aid they would need to arrive at a conclusion as to what a " deeply-held personal conviction " was.
Listening to the extravagant and vivid language used by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I got the impression that he would not be coming into the Lobby with us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) correctly said, it is a bit much that we have to listen to barristers and lawyers pontificating at length about industrial

relations and the freedom of the individual. It is significant also that they never tried to deal with the problem of the rights of the majority, or to understand the realities that are involved in a closed shop system. They do not understand why groups of workers want to form a closed shop. Nor did the Government deal with the free-loaders.
A significant feature of the debate tonight is that none of the Conservative Members with some knowledge of industrial relations and industry has attempted to participate in the debate. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham), who proposed a solution in Committee—he suggested that a levy should be imposed upon those who opted out of the trade union, which should then be paid to a charity—also did not participate in the debate. At least in Committee he recognised the force of the arguments of those who were deeply concerned about these matters. Yet he has not put forward his argument tonight. Of course, he received no support in Committee from his colleagues or from the Secretary of State.
8.30 pm
As is usual when the Minister has a weak case, tonight he put up an Aunt Sally simply to knock it down. No one had raised the Aunt Sally of the religious clauses. We made it perfectly clear that we accepted, and have always accepted, the principle that those who hold deeply-felt religious convictions need not participate in trade union activities. That has never been a difficulty in the trade union movement. It is something that has always been encompassed. The Minister spent more time putting up the Aunt Sally and knocking it down than he spent in dealing with the issues before the House.
I accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster in his quite remarkable speech. He made it clear that these are complex and difficult issues. They must be settled by human beings, one in consultation with another. To impose laws of this nature will only cause anarchy, industrial chaos and further industrial disputes. The Secretary of State, during the passage of the Bill, has suggested that he is attempting to improve industrial relations. This clause and other clauses in the Bill will harm and damage industrial relations. I


ask my hon. Friends to divide the House and support amendment No. 53 in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 304.

Division No. 263]
AYES
[8.31 pm


Abse, Leo
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley


Adams, Allen
George, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ogden, Eric


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
O'Halloran, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, John
O'Neill, Martin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Race, Reg


Bidwell, Sydney
Haynes, Frank
Radice, Giles


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Homewood, William
Robertson, George


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Horam, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Rooker, J. W.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Huckfield, Les
Roper, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sever, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Cartwright, John
Janner, Hon Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Short, Mrs Renée


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Conlan, Bernard
Kerr, Russell
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Cook, Robin F.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Kinnock, Neil
Soley, Clive


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Crowther, J. S.
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald
Stallard, A. W.


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Strang, Gavin


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Davidson, Arthur
Litherland, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Deakins, Eric
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dempsey, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tilley, John


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dormand, Jack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas, Dick
Maclennan, Robert
Watkins, David


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McMahon, Andrew
Wellbeloved, James


Dubs, Alfred
McNally, Thomas
Welsh, Michael


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McNamara, Kevin
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dunnett, Jack
McWilliam, John
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marks, Kenneth
Whitehead, Phillip


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Whitlock, William


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


English, Michael
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Maxton, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Ewing, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Woodall, Alec


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Field, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wright, Sheila


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, ltchen)



Ford, Ben
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Mr. James Tinn.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Morton, George



Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland





Adley, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Madel, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Arnold, Tom
Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Freud, Clement
Mayhew, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter
Mellor, David


Bell, Sir Ronald
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger


Blackburn, John
Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Blaker, Peter
Gow, Ian
Monro, Hector


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gray, Hamish
Moore, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry
Morgan, Geraint


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Bradford, Rev R.
Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael
Myles, David


Bright, Graham
Gummer, John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Needham, Richard


Brittan, Leon
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hastings, Stephen



Browne, John (Winchester)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksley, Warren
Parkinson, Cecil


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Budgen, Nick
Heddle, John
Parris, Matthew


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Butler, Hon Adam
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Penhaligon, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pink, R. Bonner


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pollock, Alexander


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hooson, Tom
Porter, George


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Channon, Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, Robert


Cope, John
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cranborne, Viscount
Lang, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Scott, Nicholas


Dunlop, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunn, Robert (Darttord)
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Durant, Tony
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Eggar, Timothy
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Elliott, Sir William
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sims, Roger


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McQuarrie, Albert
Speller Tony







Spence John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Warren, Kenneth


Sproat, lain
Thompson, Donald
Watson, John


Squire, Robin
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Thornton, Malcolm
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Stanley, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Steel, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Trippler, David
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin
Trotter, Neville
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Waddington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wakeham, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Peter
Waldegrave, Hon William
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)



Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tebbit, Norman
Waller, Gary
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 8, leave out lines 12 to 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 56, in page 8, line 18, leave out
' not less than 80 per cent. of those entitled to'
and insert
' a simple majority of those voting '.
No. 57, in page 8, line 25, after ' class' insert
for which the union, or unions seek the agreement'.
No. 58, in page 8, line 28, after ' conducted ', insert
' under the joint supervision of the applicant union or unions and the employer.'.

Mr. Varley: In support of this amendment I adopt many of the arguments which were used in the previous debate, but I shall not inflict them again on the House. In Committee we were concerned about the provisions set out in subsection (3) and we tried to discover from the Secretary of State why he had set the limit at 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote. The main purpose of the amendment is to delete subsection (3) because if it came into operation it would be virtually impossible to arrange union membership agreements. It is arranged in such a way that I cannot think of any other section of society or organisation which would require 80 per cent. of those entitled to vote to vote in favour before any arrangement could come into operation.
8.45 pm
During our discussions in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,

North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked from where the Secretary of State and the Government got the 80 per cent. figure. Was it plucked out of the air? Is there some rationale behind it? In reply, the Secretary of State said:
 We have deliberately chosen a high figure of 80 per cent. to ensure that a new closed shop will be approved only where it is genuinely and positively wanted by a large majority of those who will be affected".—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; col. 892.]
He did not say why it should be 80 per cent., 75 per cent., or even a simple majority. It is our judgment that if the figure of 80 per cent. is left in the Bill no new union membership agreements will come into operation. That is probably the Secretary of State's intention. If so, it would be better that he said it.

Amendment No. 56 in effect says that if the Government were to go down the path of holding ballots to establish union membership agreements, at least they ought to rely on nothing more than
 a simple majority of those voting ".

I suspect that that is not acceptable to the Secretary of State, but it is good enough for most other organisations. It is certainly good enough for our electoral system. In fact, from time to time the Government claim that they have the wholehearted consent of the electorate in carrying through this and many other pieces of legislation. Yet only 35 or 40 per cent. of the electorate voted for them. Therefore, I do not know why the Government should want to inflict such a high figure on the trade unions. This debate will give the Secretary of State an opportunity to tell us again.

I had intended to refer to the problem of the free-rider. However, having listened to the previous debate, I should like to emphasise the point that was made


by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Needham). He took the argument seriously in Committee and said that if someone had strong, conscientious, deeply-held convictions for not belonging to a trade union he should pay something to charity. That idea was rejected by the Government, and also by his hon. Friends, mostly lawyers, who spoke in the previous debate.

I shall not take up much time because we are anxious to get on to the amendments to be moved by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). However, the Donovan Commission, to which we have referred throughout these debates, said of the closed shop:
 In our view prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected. It is better to recognise that under proper safeguards a closed shop can serve a useful purpose and to devise alternative means of overcoming the disadvantages which accompany it. W have also borne in mind that throughout this report we advanced a number of proposals to assist trade unions to organise effectively and to reduce the incidence of strikes ".

That is also the view of quite a number of responsible employers' organisations.

The most recent information that we have about union membership agreements, if there is concern about whether they are operating properly, is contained in the article published in the Employment Gazette in November last year. It was compiled by Mr. Gennard, Mr. Dunn and Mr. Wright of the industrial relations department of the London School of Economics. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who used to be Secretary of State for Employment, is muttering. I do not know whether he wants to intervene or to say something complimentary, either about the gentlemen I have just mentioned or about the industrial relations department of the London School of Economics. At least I think I shall carry the right hon. Gentleman with me in saying that the Employment Gazette is a responsible journal. I do not believe that irresponsible articles would be allowed to appear in it and I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman if he has not yet had the chance to look at it.

The article is a responsible piece of research about the operation of the closed shop. The authors had this to say in summary:

 Negotiators have concluded increasingly sophisticated post-entry UMAs to define precisely the obligations and rights of workers whose union membership agreement exists as a condition of employment, and despite enormous variation in detail there appears to be a growing standardisation in the broad content matter which is only partly attributable to legal considerations. For example, where new closed shops have appeared, it has increasingly become the norm to exclude existing non-unionists from compulsion to join the union. Over 63 per cent. of the sample fall into this category. Moreover, procedures specially designed to handle difficulties arising from the operation of the UMA and often incorporating provisions for an independent arbitrator have become a regular, if seldom used feature.

That summary should allay the fears of Conservative Members about how union membership agreements have operated. They have been used responsibly and proper provisions can be made for those who have religious or deeply-held convictions and who do not wish to belong to a trade union. Their position is negotiable.

I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will say why he has set the figure so high. Perhaps he will tell us why he wishes to eliminate all closed shops and why he cannot accept amendment No. 56 if he wishes to go down this road.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has said, we are now to have a brief debate on these four amendments. That does not alter the fact that they are important and that the Government must answer them.
The first of the amendments would wreck this part of the clause and would remove ballots altogether. The second amendment would make it a simple majority instead of 80 per cent. and I shall return to that issue. The third amendment would, as it were, broaden the class to which the ballot applied and the fourth amendment would deal with joint supervision.
The main Opposition argument is that we do not need a ballot at all or that, if we do need one, we should have a simple majority and that the figure of 80 per cent. is far too high. On this point I said in Committee:
 The view of the Government has always been that the introduction of a new closed shop marks such a substantial change in the terms and conditions of employment that it is right


that a very large percentage of those who will be covered by it vote in its favour. It is a very important step when a closed shop is brought in ".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; c. 872.]
I was challenged on the figure of 80 per cent. and I said that industrial experience was that a union was most unlikely to apply for a closed shop until it had between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. union membership. An employer is unlikely to agree to a closed shop—or to try to obtain a closed shop himself—and I put it in that light—unless there is that sort of membership. When such a substantial change is being made, it does not seem unreasonable that there should be a considerable majority.
I do not know whether the requirement will have an effect on the number of new closed shops. I suspect that it will, because it will not be easy to achieve the required majority. If it is not possible to achieve it, I do not think that there should be a closed shop. If it can be achieved and if there is that majority of 80 per cent., I do not think it unreasonable that there should be a closed shop.
We believe that it should be shown that it is the desire of a large majority of the work force involved to have a closed shop. If it can be shown that there is such a majority, we shall have much more settled industrial relations than if the proposal is bulldozed through with many people not having the right to make their views known in advance.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield enlarged the issue. He referred to the article in the Employment Gazette. I do not have it with me, but I have read it. It refers to increasingly sophisticated arrangements for closed shops and the number of closed shops that are now based on sensible and reasonable arrangements—for example, existing members of the work force not being asked to join and wider conscience clauses.
The right hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. He is saying that the majority of closed shops will not be affected by the Bill when it is enacted because certain matters will be taken into account in advance. If they are so taken into account, the legislation will not bite on them. If he accepts, as he does, that these are reasonable matters to include in

a closed shop agreement, he can have no real objection to the standards that we are seeking to lay down for closed shops.

Mr. Gorst: May I support my right hon. Friend's argument? I have had the opportunity of reading some more recent research than that to which he has referred. Miss Helen Jackson and Dr. Charles Hanson have investigated more than three times as many agreements as those investigated by John Gennard. It appears that a considerable underestimate has been made by John Gennard, and that it is much more likely that there are twice as many written agreements in existence than one was led to suppose by the Gennard research.

Mr. Prior: That is helpful of my hon. Friend. It substantiates the weight of public opinion and parliamentary opinion over the past few years—namely, that there should be reasonable grounds for exemption from the closed shop and that closed shop agreements should be drawn up that win the support of the work force. In so far as at present they do not do that and in so far as in the past few years, as a result of the 1975 and 1976 Acts, things have gone wrong, I believe that we all have a duty to seek to put matters right.
The way in which we are now dealing with the closed shop is an approach that can be broadly supported by industry. I do not want to trespass on what I might say when debating the next amendment. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has said that research that supersedes the Gennard research indicates that there are twice as many written agreements in existence as we have been led to suppose. When we discuss the next amendment I think that my hon. Friend should be more content with the present position and should not try to follow a too legalistic route. I shall argue that with some strength when we turn our attention to the next group of amendments.
We have the balance reasonably right. I do not believe that the 80 per cent. requirement is too high for such a great change.

Amendment No. 57 is unnecessary. A closed shop agreement cannot be made unless discussion has taken place between the parties. If the parties cannot agree, no closed shop will be formed. A closed


shop can therefore be formed only by agreement of those parties.

9 pm

Amendment No. 58 calls for joint supervision. This is probably for a code of practice. However, I would have thought that as this is an important ballot, and as we wish to get more ballots in operation, it would be wise to use an outside body to carry out the ballot and for it to be supervised by the Electoral Reform Society or by some other body of that nature. That certainly means that the ballot would be conducted fairly and properly and that it would win the confidence of all those involved.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield has said that he does not wish to spend a lot of time on these amendments. However, we are not prepared to accept them. We believe that the last amendment is unnecessary and that two of them would wreck our purpose. He has made a conciliatory speech and I am trying to make one in return. It is right to get these amendments out of the way and to move on to what I hope will not be an unduly controversial number of amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). I therefore ask the House to reject these amendments.

Mr. Cryer: The clause goes to the heart of the Government's vicious attack on the trade union movement. It represents an attempt to tinker with the voting system in order to stop the closed shop. The Government's justification has nothing to do with democracy or with the other platitudes that we have heard. They wish to inhibit the effectiveness of the trade union movement. People belong to a trade union because they have only their labour to sell and they need to face the might of capital.
The Secretary of State is presented as the compromiser of the Conservative Party. However, this clause is an example of the lengths to which the Government will go to crush the trade union movement, without incurring a backlash similar to that which toppled the Heath Government in 1974. One group says that the Government must be careful, while the hawks, having successfully mounted an assault on the coloured workers at Grunwick think that they can extend their tentacles of repression to-

wards the trade union movement. That group wishes to go further.
Most people cannot work in the privileged surroundings in which we work. Most working people find life a struggle. They therefore see the trade union movement as part of that struggle and use it to obtain gains in the day-to-day battle. It may be said that there should not be a battle. In some circumstances capital and labour work together. However, the existence of a Tory Government has meant that many employers have hardened their attitudes. They see this legislation as a means of crushing trade union activity wherever possible.
Why 80 per cent.? The Secretary of State has given a pretty pathetic explanation. It is certainly an example of double standards. There appears to be a different standard for ordinary working men and women. They must be an extraordinary collection of people if legislation is needed to ensure that 80 per cent. of the electorate vote in favour of a proposition. That standard does not apply to Parliament. Our legislation affects everybody in the country. Most legislation affects millions of people. We do not insist on an 80 per cent. vote in favour of it. The Tories will not have an 80 per cent. vote in favour of this legislation. If they get it through by one vote they will say that that is all right. Why should there be different standards for trade unionists? Of course it is deliberate.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member asked why we have this provision for an 80 per cent. ballot. He is trying to interpret our thinking, therefore he should understand that we seek to protect people on the shop floor from their own unions. In a sense, the union is unlike a club or other organisation, because when a man is deprived of his union card, for whatever behaviour, he is deprived of a living for his family and himself. Therefore, it is important that there should be an overwhelming majority in favour of a closed shop, to safeguard the man on the shop floor.

Mr. Cryer: If that is the case, why is there not an 80 per cent. vote in favour of all the statutory instruments that regulate the various professions? When a doctor is struck off by the General Medical Council for disciplinary reasons, and thus loses his livelihood, we do not insist


that the order should be passed by an 80 per cent. vote in favour of it. In fact, such orders are almost certainly negative procedure instruments, which never even get debated.
I understand the position of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). He must put himself back into the mainstream of Tory thinking. He has given approval to pickets who are fighting a vicious employer in Huddersfield. I understand that he is pursuing a difficult path, but I am afraid that his argument does not strengthen his case.

Mr. Leighton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is even worse than he says? It is not just 80 per cent. of those who vote, but 80 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote. In our experience, most elections do not attract 80 per cent. of those eligible to vote. Therefore, one could have a ballot in which 21 per cent. of people did not vote. In other words 79 per cent. of those voting might vote 100 per cent. in favour of a closed shop, but that would not meet the requirements of this clause.

Mr. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful comments. There was an argument during the referendum on the Common Market, which was not supported by the Euro-fanatics in the Conservative Party at the time, or those in the Labour Party, that we would take the decision on the basis of those who voted, not on the percentage of those eligible to vote, as clause 6(3) lays down. It is a question of gerrymandering the voting to suit the political position of the Tory Party. That is the naked, straightforward truth, and it is time that we cut through the platitudes that swamp this place.
Of course the Conservatives do not want to consider the feelings of trade unionists. If they wanted to consider trade unionists they would look at the statistics. They know that during the four years of the last Conservative Government 55 million days were lost in strikes. When we came to power we passed legislation to give trade unions the right to operate as trade unions and combine—we did not give them any special privileges in law; we only allowed them to exist. We did not make the closed shop compulsory, we only allowed it to exist. As a result, the days lost in strikes in the first four years

of the Labour Government totalled 29 million—roughly half the number lost under the Conservatives. On a legislative basis it makes sense to improve industrial relations, not by penal legislation, such as this Bill, but by allowing trade unions to get on with their jobs. The Tories say that theirs is a non-interventionist Government. In speech after speech, at Question Time after Question Time, they say " We are not going to intervene. We have given tax concessions. We are helping entrepreneurs to provide jobs." Yet they get their dirty little fingers into the trade union movement. They are selective about intervention. It is part of their philosophy not to intervene in industry. Why does not that attitude carry across to the trade union movement? The answer is that they want to intervene to crush the trade union movement. That is what the clause is about. That is why we want to delete it.
It is no good the Secretary of State coming to the House and delivering a bleeding-heart speech about concern for improved industrial relations. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that this country, each year, loses more days through industrial injury than in strike action. What are the Government doing about industrial injury legislation? The answer is absolutely nothing. They could improve the position for people, cut the number of days lost from work and improve productivity, but they do nothing. They produce, instead, comprehensive legislation that must have taken thousands of man hours to prepare and nurture. They spend hours in Parliament over restrictive clauses such as clause 6, especially subsection (3).
Since the Government are so concerned about democracy and the right of trade unionists to have a ballot on the closed shop, they will no doubt be aware that I have put forward a Ten-Minute Bill to extend the rights embodied in section 58A. I claim that my Bill is a more important matter and that the internal affairs of the trade union movement should be left alone. I wish to give people living within 30 miles of the proposed cruise missile sites the right to vote to discover whether 80 per cent. favour cruise missiles.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) believes so much in democracy that he tried to stop a local authority from holding a referendum.


That is quite apart from his attitude to my legislation. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) said that I should keep my nose out of the matter. He claimed that it was a constituency affair and that the location of cruise missiles was no concern of the rest of the nation.
I have given the Government an opportunity. They claim to be concerned about important matters, I think it will be agreed that cruise missiles are at least on a par with the internal organisation of trade unions. I would say that they are far more important. The future of mankind may rest on what I hope will be their temporary installation on our shores.
The Government may say that they are not picking on trade unions. They may say that people should have an opportunity

to express a view on an important issue and that the Bill of the hon. Member for Keighley should therefore be supported, but my guess is that they will do nothing of the sort. They want to make decisions about defence independently of Parliament, and independently of the people. They want this shabby little clause, gerrymandering the vote, to attack the trade union movement. That is how the issue will be seen by the trade union movement, and that is why it will express its oppositions to these policies on 14 May, and will continue to do so until a Labour Government repeal this shoddy measure.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 290.

Division No. 264]
AYES
9.14 pm


Abse, Leo
Dubs, Alfred
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Adams, Allen
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Anderson, Donald
Dunnett, Jack
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynett
Kerr, Russell


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eastham, Ken
Kinnock, Nell


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Lamborn, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Leighton, Ronald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Litherland, Robert


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fitt, Gerard
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek
McElhone, Frank


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell, Ian
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce
McMahon, Andrew


Cant, R. B.
Ginsburg, David
McNally, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Golding, John
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gourlay, Harry
McWilliam, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Cook, Robin F.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maxton, John


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, J. S.
Haynes, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Davidson, Arthur
Home Robertson, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Homewood, William
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morton, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Dempsey, James
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Newens, Stanley


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dixon, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ogden, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Janner, Hon Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Douglas, Dick
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George




Parker, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Parry, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Snape, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Price, Christopher (Lewisham west)
Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Race, Reg
Spearing, Niger
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Radice, Giles
Sprlggs, Leslie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richardson, Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (w isles)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Stoddart, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Straw, Jack
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sever, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Wright, Sheila


Sheerman, Barry
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Short Mrs Renée
Tilley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYE


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom
Mr James Tinn and


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Alexander, Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Alison, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hooson, Tom


Ancram, Michael
Dover, Denshore
Hordern, Peter


Arnold, Tom
du Cann. Rt Hon Edward
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunlop, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dykes, Hugh
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Sir Ronald
Eggar, Timothy
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bendall, Vivian
Elliott, Sir William
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Eyre, Reginald
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom


Best, Keith
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lamont, Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lang, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Fell, Anthony
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Blackburn, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Latham, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lee, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bowden, Andrew
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, lan (Havant &amp; Waterloo


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John


Brinton, Tim
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Luce, Richard


Brittan, Leon
Fry, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCrindle, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil


Brotherton, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacGregor, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Goodhart, Philip
Macmiilan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian
McQuarrie, Albert


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond
Madel, David


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Major, John


Butcher, John
Greenway, Harry
Marland, Paul


Butler, Hon Adam
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marlow, Tony


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Churchill, W. S.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Corrie, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Costain, A. P.
Heddle, John
Moate, Roger


Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, Barry
Molyneaux, James


Critchley, Julian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Monro, Hector


Crouch, David
Hicks. Robert
Montgomery, Fergus







Moore, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Morgan, Geraint
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thompson, Donald


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Nell (llford South)


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Rossi, Hugh
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Myles, David
Royle, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Neale, Gerrard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


Needham, Richard
Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Neubert, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Newton, Tony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)
Wakeham, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Parkinson, Cecil
Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Parris, Matthew
Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walters, Dennis


Patten, John (Oxford)
Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Speller Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Penhaligon, David
Spence John
Watson, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Sproat, lain
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Porter, George
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stanley, John
Whitney, Raymond


Prior, Rt Hon James
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wickenden, Keith


Proctor, K. Harvey
Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stevens, Martin
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stokes, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stradling Thomas, J.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Renton, Tim
Tapsell, Peter



Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Gorst: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 8, line 13, after ' 58A' insert—
' (1) A union membership agreement which came into force on a day prior to this Act coming into operation shall be deemed to be null and void if it has not been confirmed by a secret ballot carried out by not later than two years after the passing of this Act, and in accordance within the provisions of this section.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient for the House to consider at the same time the following amendments:
No. 33, in page 8, line 17, after ' question ', insert
' within the previous three years '.
No. 9, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
(4) Existing union membership agreements shall cease to have effect three years after the passing of the Employment Act 1980 unless re-approved by a ballot to which the conditions specified in subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply.
(5) All future union membership agreements shall lapse three years after they come into effect unless they are re-approved by a ballot to which the conditions specified in subsections (1) to (3) above shall apply.'.
No. 34, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
' (4) If not so approved in strict accordance with the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and

(3) above, the union membership agreement proposed shall be null and void and the contract of employment between the employer and the employees concerned shall be unenforceable in that respect, and if the trade union and employer concerned shall nevertheless conclude such an agreement, the trade union shall be regarded for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 and all its provisions as having forfeited registration as an independent trade union.'.

Mr. Gorst: I shall be brief, because I do not think that a great deal needs to be said about the amendment; it is quite simple. Its purpose is to extend to those already locked in a closed shop the right to vote on whether they wish to be in that closed shop. Under the Bill, that right will be conferred on those who are not yet in a closed shop. They will be given the opportunity to vote on the issue. If 80 per cent. say " Yes ", there will be a closed shop. If 80 per cent. say " No ", there will not be a closed shop. The amendment provides that those who are already in a closed shop will be given the same opportunity as those not yet in a closed shop. It does not go beyond the principle which is already enshrined in the Bill. We are not asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do anything that is not already a principle enshrined in the Bill.
If 80 per cent. of a union's membership should in future be the qualifying


number for a closed shop, why should not 80 per cent. also be a pass mark for closed shops already in existence? All the amendment does is, first, to require an affirmation after not more than two years, and secondly, to provide that that affirmation, endorsement, confirmation—whatever it is called—should be available to those who presently do not have the opportunity to express an opinion.
I wish to make the position and context clear. At present, about 30 to 40 per cent. of the entire work force in Britain are locked in closed shops, either formal or informal. That is an enormous proportion of a work force of 22 million.
I do not know what will be ray right Friend's attitude to the amendment, but I received a certain indication from him in Committee as to what he regarded as being the right procedure if we were to consider regularly testing the position. I asked my right hon. Friend
 whether … it would be desirable to have regular testing of the situation?
He replied:
 This is very much a matter for a code of practice."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1980; c. 898.]
9.30 pm
I do not mind leaving to a code of practice a periodic review of a closed shop. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is insisting that when a closed shop is first initiated there should be a significant ballot in favour of it. Therefore, I ask that we should legislatively ensure that there is ballot for those already in existence. That is the purpose of the amendment.
There are only two other points that I wish to make. First, let us assume that by the autumn of this year someone has been forced to join a closed shop, or otherwise lose his job, and that he has been in that position for a year or two. I maintain that it is extremely unlikely that an industrial tribunal will accept that he then genuinely objects on grounds of conscience or " deeply-held personal conviction" if he raises the matter on appeal before such a tribunal. Therefore, the effect of the Bill on existing reluctant members of closed shops will be virtually non-existent They will remain disfranchised unless the amendment

is made. In a sense, they will remain under-privileged. I believe that they have the same right to treatment as future generations of closed shop trade unionists.
Without the amendment the Bill will condone existing closed shops. It will do nothing for those who have been dragooned into closed shops—possibly against their will or under the threat of losing their jobs. Equally, regrettably, it will be totally inconsistent with the Bill, because its approach to new and old closed shops will be based upon no discernible rational tenet of philosophy other than perhaps a philosophy of dealing softly, softly with trade union reform—softly, softly, not to ruffle the trade union movement which, if one is to understand Opposition Members, is already sufficiently ruffled.
I suggest that there is no point of policy or principle which is not already enshrined in the Bill which ought to constitute an argument against acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wish to speak to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and to amendment No. 9 which has been tabled in my name and the names of 26 other hon. Members.
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to allow those who are currently in closed shops to have a vote within three years of the Bill becoming an Act to say whether they want to stay within closed shops and, on top of that, that those in any closed shop so agreed, or any future closed shop, should have the right every three years to have a ballot to see whether they still want to remain within a closed shop.
There is nothing that the press likes more than what it thinks is a political revolt or a party rebellion. Its nostrils flare at the very feeling of potential parliamentary bloodshed, and it likes, above all, the sight of ministerial entrails dangling from the Gallery.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Gallows, not Gallery.

Mr. Marlow: On this occasion, sadly, our friends in the press have got it completely wrong.

Sir Ronald Bell: I wonder whether my hon. Friend means " Gallery " or " gallows ".

Mr. Marlow: I take my hon. and learned Friend's intervention as he would like. On this occasion our friends in the press have got it wrong. They are rather out of date. The self-same press that for years has been castigating Members of Parliament as being Lobby fodder, ciphers, placemen, men of straw, men of no account, people who will do anything for a bribe, should have noticed during the term of the previous minority Government that individual Members of Parliament realised once again that they had a role of their own that they could play in affecting the future of Government policy. This is wholly good for the country.
During that Parliament, and during this Parliament, hon. Members may have voted against the Government while at the same time being wholehearted supporters of the Government, and having every confidence in the programme that the Government put before the people. The press would say that those hon. Members who voted in favour of new clause 3 last night were voting against the Government. In fact, we were voting for the new clause, and I should like the press to take note that most hon. Members who so voted are amongst the strongest supporters of the Government.
I have the highest regard for, and the greatest confidence in, the Bill as now amended. Together with deeming, this is a courageous step that has previously been flunked by the Labour Party. The measures that have been proposed will do more than measures that have been introduced by, I was going to say, any Government but in reality by all Governments to transform this country from the industrial backwater into which it has been pushed into the industrial mainstream of Europe.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I consider the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be an argument in justification, but he is now making a Second Reading speech. He must address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Marlow: I concur entirely with what you say, Mr. Speaker. The Bill seeks, through the encouragement of

ballots, through the provisions against some of the abuses of the closed shop, and the control of the intimidation and anarchy of the mass of indiscriminate picketing—this is where I am coming to the point, Mr. Speaker—to protect individual British citizens—workers, trade unionists—from being bullied and pushed around. In the words of the immortal Citizen Smith of the Tooting Popular Front, we are trying to give power to the people. We are trying once again to establish real democracy at the grass roots, so that the responsibility for trade unionism, will rest with the individual trade unionist rather than with the trade union bureaucrats. This is highly germane to the amendment that we are now discussing. The Bill—and the amendment—is exceptional and yet they are entirely unexceptionable.
I should like to say a word to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because I am taking a slightly different view from him. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend. I should like to congratulate him on an excellent speech yesterday, and I look forward to hearing another excellent speech today. His speech was logical, moving, passionate and persuasive. I congratulate him on the esteem in which he is held in the House and on the inestimable value that that esteem bears for the Government and the country in his actions with the trade unions.
Why have I been active in pursuing these amendments? My right hon. Friend is rightly approaching the matter of trade union reform on a step-by-step basis. The amendments that have been put forward by my hon. Friends and myself are part of that step-by-step approach. In fairness, we do not expect my right hon. Friend to accept these amendments at this stage. Among other things, before such amendments, which are far reaching and significant, are brought in, they must be discussed with the various parties who would be affected by them.
However, it is up to us to set out the next stage. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that if necessary we shall introduce further new measures, step by step, in this area. It is up to us on the Conservative Benches to prepare the ground, dig the soil and get ready for the next measures, so that we can have argument


and discussion in the country on the basis of solid support from the House for measures that we may wish to introduce in future.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be helpful and will tell us that some of the things that are being suggested will be introduced into the code of practice. If he says that, I shall bless him for it and be pleased. However, I imagine that the code of practice will be voluntary. Some of the worst abuses—and there are abuses—occur when a closed shop is in the hands of a tyrant. I can hardly believe that if measures that are against his interest are put into a code of practice, that man will implement them. If someone has his fingers on a vice and the law does not tell him to take his fingers off, he will keep them on.
People have very strong feelings on this matter and want us to discuss it in the House. They would like to know that a large number of hon. Members have great concern for their feelings and are prepared to react accordingly. I believe that, in a way, for the amendments to be discussed and voted on will facilitate the difficult and sensitive job that my right hon. Friend has to do.
The purpose of the amendment is to allow those who are already in closed shops to have the same privileges as those about to join a closed shop and to vote on whether they wish to stay in.
I understand that there are about 25 million in work in this country, of whom about half are trade unionists. Half of those trade unionists are in closed shops. I do not think that it is disputed that one-third of all trade unionists voted Conservative at the last election. [HON. MEMBERS: " More ".] Correction, more. If one-quarter of the trade unionists who voted Conservative at the last election and are in closed shops do not wish to be in them, that then means that ½ million people are forced to be in closed shops that they do not want to be in. That is a serious matter.
Most hon. Members do not share the blind hatred for closed shops of some people in the country. We all agree that they are rooted in the traditions of this country and that people have strong views on either side of the argument. I

think that we all agree that, as far as possible, we should move along common ground in the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is nothing to stop any person in a closed shop from leaving his job and going to a lower-paid job as, for example, a farmworker, where there is no closed shop? That is why people will not leave. They do not want to go to lower paid jobs.

Mr. Marlow: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point, which is not something of which he can be proud, that there is nothing stopping anybody in a closed shop from leaving his job. The problem is that there is a lot stopping people from staying in a closed shop job when they want to.
Closed shops have their advantages. In many situations managements get a lot of benefit from closed shops. They know who they are talking to. There is also a great deal of concern, from the trade union point of view, about freeloaders who accept the work and advice of shop stewards and the benefits accruing from negotiations without paying for them. I should love to have free legal advice, but I doubt whether my hon. and learned Friends would be prepared to give it to me, and I quite see their point.
9.45 pm
There are a great number of disadvantages to the closed shop. What does a closed shop mean? It means that a person who does not do what the closed shop tells him to do will be thrown out of a job. Whereas a person who conflicts with the laws of the land goes before a judge and jury and may lose for a time his liberty or be fined, a person who goes against the massive power of the closed shop loses his livelihood, perhaps for ever. There are other disadvantages. In our less productive industries there is a preponderance of closed shops.
The measure that we are proposing is simple and liberal. I think we would all agree that the closed shop on the whole is not a good thing. It would not be right or possible for us to seek to ban the closed shop. That was tried in 1971 and the attempt was ineffective. It would not be right because it is up to the people in


each individual closed shop to decide whether they want that closed shop to remain.
Then let the ballots take place. The fact that a ballot is about to take place would make the union shop stewards and anyone involved in the union far more responsive to the wishes of the membership than they are in many places at present. If the ballot is positive, well and good. That has been decided, and the closed shop would have an element of authority and dignity that it does not have now. If the ballot is negative, should we not be interested in the fact that people are currently in closed shops that they do not wish to be in?
Do not we in this country believe in freedom and democracy? Where in some circumstances there is corrupt power within a closed shop, should not that power be destroyed? Where there is a degree of tyranny, should not that tyranny be emasculated? Where there are slavery and serfdom, should we not introduce freedom? Where there are inefficient restrictive practices, would it not be better if people had productive and satisfying employment?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Has the hon. Gentleman ever negotiated a closed shop? Has he ever belonged to a closed shop? Has he been an employer who has resisted a closed shop? Has he ever had anything to do with a closed shop, or is he talking from a theoretical standpoint on a subject about which he knows nothing?

Mr. Marlow: I answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that I have never committed rape or had an abortion and yet I am called upon with him to take parliamentary action on these measures.
If this measure becomes law——

Mr. Cyril Smith: Supplementing the question posed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), has the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) received, as I have, letters from people who have suffered severely as a consequence of being penalised through a closed shop?

Mr. Marlow: That is a serious intervention, as opposed to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), which was stupid and flippant. Yes, I have, and I find it

very moving and disturbing. That is one reason why I am supporting the amendment.
If the amendment becomes law, it will not be hon. Members who will decide what should happen with each individual closed shop; the people themselves will decide. The House takes great pride in letting the people decide wherever possible.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) always speaks in gentle tones when he is moving the most extreme measures, whereas the language of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is a little more intemperate. The hon. Member for Hendon, North always starts by saying that his motion is very simple. I want to show that his motion is not so simple. The hon. Gentleman wants to extend voting to all existing closed shops. I presume that he wants the 80 per cent. concept to apply to existing closed shops. Incidentally, I notice the distinction here between 80 per cent. for closed shops and 15 per cent., which was the figure that we discussed last night on another issue with regard to ballots. It is an interesting distinction.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be disruptive for the new arrangements and extremely disruptive in respect of existing closed shops.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the correct comparison in percentage terms is not 80 per cent. as against 15 per cent. but rather 80 per cent. as against 20 per cent.?

Mr. Radice: I am sorry, but I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. The point I am making is that if one applies the 80 per cent. test to existing arrangements it will be extremely disruptive to industrial relations. I hope that Conservative Members are interested in industrial relations. If they are, they should take into account the figure of 30 to 40 per cent. which the hon. Member for Hendon, North has just mentioned. They should think about what that would mean. It would mean that ballots would have to be held up and down the country. It would be extremely disruptive to industrial relations.
The case for having closed shops is twofold. First, they give employees an additional strength, and, secondly, employers are strongly in favour of them.

Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Krupps were very much in favour of having slave labour from the rest of Europe?

Mr. Radice: I am not prepared to respond to that intervention. As usual, it seems totally irrelevant.
Most employers are worried about the changes which are already contained in the Bill. They will be even more worried if the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North is passed. They are strongly against the idea of tampering with closed shops, because if employees speak with one voice it solves one industrial relations problem for employers. The hon. Member for Hendon, North is trying to disrupt the existing pattern of relationships. That would be a disastrous step.
Of course, there are libertarian issues with regard to the closed shop. I wish that Conservative Members who are so interested in liberty would, when it comes to trade unions, apply that concept a little more widely. We would then perhaps listen to them with a little more conviction.
My view, and the view of most trade unionists, is that these problems should be solved through voluntary arrangements. I do not know whether any Conservative Members have read the survey by the Department of Employment, which shows that most existing closed shop arrangements now take account of libertarian and conscience issues, but the view is that existing non-trade unionists do not have to join a trade union. Therefore, existing closed shops are already dealing with these issues.
My fear is that most Conservative Members who have tabled amendments of this kind are against all closed shops. Furthermore, I believe that they are merely paving amendments towards the goal of abolishing all trade unions. What worries me is that the Conservative Party seems to believe that trade unions were all right in the nineteenth century but that they are now out of date and unnecessary. That is basically the view they discuss with their wives in the middle of the night.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: No, I will not. What really worries me——

Mr. Brotherton: Mr. Brothertonrose——

Mr. Radice: No, I will not give way. What worries me is that——

Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been made quite clear by the hon. Member for Ches-ter-le-Street (Mr. Radice) that he does not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).

Mr. Brotherton: Would it not be in order for me to point out that the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is only in order for me to point out that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, (Mr. Radice) has the floor.

Mr. Radice: What has worried me about the tone of this debate and that of the debate last night is that it reveals that the Right wing of the Conservative Party is trying to set the agenda for the Secretary of State for Employment. It is attempting to decide what will be in the next legislation. That worries me, it worries the Labour Party, it worries the trade union movement and it worries employers. Right-wing members of the Tory Party know nothing about industrial relations, and if the Secretary of State listens to their siren voices it will be dangerous and a disaster for the country. I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of contributing to the long debates on the Bill. It is also the first occasion on which any of the many amendments that I have tabled have been selected by you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly seek an early occasion to ascertain why some of the other excellent amendments I have tabled have not been selected for debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I could tell the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) now why his amendments have not been selected but I shall not; I am much too kind. I can tell the hon. Member only that this amendment has been selected for discussion.

Mr. Winterton: You always win out in these exchanges, Mr. Speaker. You always have the upper hand and I always stoop to your advice and to any requests which you make. I fully appreciate that


my two amendments have been called only for discussion.
Perhaps I can answer straight away one of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Rad-ice). I am indeed utterly and entirely opposed to closed shops. I believe that they are evil and that they are an unacceptable infringement of personal liberty. What is more, I believe that the closed shop is the basis of most of the abuse of trade union power in this country.—[Interruption.] I am not a lawyer. I say openly to Opposition Members below the Gangway that it is perhaps a good thing that there are some hon. Members who are not lawyers.
I have taken a consistent view on this subject and I say to Opposition Members that I have every respect for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I believe that he has been sincere, genuine and consistent in his approach to the reform of industrial relations. But I say to him that I believe that he has got it wrong. I disagree with him fundamentally.
Therefore, I say to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that there are some Conservative Members who are prepared to stand up and be counted and who are prepared to justify our stand. We are prepared to say openly that there is perhaps a difference of view within our party. I also say openly that I hope that my right hon. Friend, who has obviously carried the day, with the majority of the parliamentary party behind him, proves to be right and that this legislation will be successful. The future of our country depends upon peace, harmony and stability in industrial relations. If we do not get that, I do not know how we shall achieve the progress that Britain needs.

Mr. Allen McKay: When the hon. Gentleman talks about peace and harmony in industrial relations, does he honestly believe that his amendment would bring peace and harmony to industrial relations? What about the freedom and the democratic right of an individual who refuses to work with a non-trade unionist?
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting the Employment Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Winterton: That was an extra ordinary intervention. I was referring to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay). I rarely query the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. That is not a matter for me. It is extraordinary to suggest that those who choose to remain outside a closed shop and who oppose a closed shop are un-democratic. That cannot be equated with wishing to give people freedom and responsibility. We have also been asked why trade unionists should vote with non-trade unionists. Probably slightly less than half the British people are trade unionists. Why cannot we all work together both inside and outside trade unions? There are some trade unionists in unions that are associated and affiliated to the TUC and some who are not. There are staff associations and all the other——

Mr. Brotherton: Mr. Brothertonrose——

Mr. Winterton: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Brotherton: Mr. Brothertonrose——

Mr. Winterton: Very well, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).

Mr. Brotherton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), who talked about land, is a landowner not only in the North-East of England but in France? It ill becomes him to talk about the way in which British people——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a long way from the question of the closed shop.

Mr. Winterton: If there is a closed shop of landowners, I do not fall into that category. I am not really interested whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street owns land in Spain, France or any other part of the world. That has no relevance to the debate.
I am behind the general principle contained in the amendment. Obviously, I wish to see my amendments, Nos. 33 and


34, included in the Bill. I believe that their inclusion would bring genuine democratic rights to British working people.
No doubt the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street or others who have participated, including the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who has been so active on Report, could give me the precise number of those who are members of closed shops in various places of work. However, that is not basically relevant. Many of those who are part of closed shops never had an opportunity to vote for the closed shops in the first place. It is right that we allow those in an existing closed shop to vote within a specified period whether they want the closed shop to continue.
My critical amendment is No. 33, the one upon which No. 34 hangs. It seeks to insert
 within the previous three years 
after " question " in clause 6 on page 8, line 17. If Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), believe that the closed shop is correct and that it will lead to peace and harmony, they should be prepared to put that idea to the test. They should allow existing members of closed shops to vote on that issue.
In 1953, Britain formally became a member of the Council of Europe of 21 nations. In January 1966 the Labour Government, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) accepted that all rulings emanating from the European Court of Human Rights would be considered binding on the British Government. If cases in the long-running saga of the British closed shop are referred to that court by the European Commission or by the Council of Ministers, and if it is ruled that compulsory closed shops contravene articles 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the charter, the Government must respond or face the humiliation of possible expulsion from the Commission. However, we would not face expulsion from the EEC, because that is a separate entity. Indeed, that may be a matter for further debate at a later stage.
If Britain makes no effort to show the European Court or Commission that we are prepared to allow those who have become part of a closed shop to indicate whether they wish to remain such, our

case within Europe will be lost by default; the ruling of the European Court will go against this country. These amendments are therefore serious. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street did a great disservice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) when he said that he was moving an extreme amendment, even if he did so in dulcet and moderate tones.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North stood up for a principle that is enshrined within the European Court of Human Rights. If hon. Members do not have a right to refer to these matters as often, as positively and as constructively as they wish, this House will not be doing its duty or serving our people.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) was associated with the Grunwick dispute. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that those employed by Grunwick will be allowed to join a trade union? Is he suggesting that they will be allowed to decide every three years whether there should be a closed shop?

Mr. Winterton: I was under the impression that the majority of workers at that firm had clearly demonstrated that they did not want a closed shop. [Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would listen and not get carried away by party dogma. A sizeable number of employees at Grunwick may have wished to become members of the union. No doubt they would have voted for a closed shop. However, the majority of employees voted against a trade union and against a closed shop.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider another relevant example? It should first be placed on record that the majority of those at Grunwick who had wished to join a union were sacked. In my constituency the firm of Chix has refused to recognise that the overwhelming majority of its work force, consisting mainly of Asian women, wish to join a union and have that union recognised. They have been on strike since last October. According to his argument, the workers at Chix are right and the employer is wrong.

Mr. Winterton: I seek to get legislation on the statute book that has meaning


and that can restore sanity to industrial relations in this country. I do not pretend to know everything about the case that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) has just mentioned. It would be presumptuous of me to suggest that I do. I am simply giving my views in general on the issue of the closed shop, and the amendments which Mr. Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has brought forward for debate tonight. There is no doubt that the employees of the company to which the hon. Member referred could take advantage of this enlightened piece of Conservative legislation when it goes on the statute book.
In supporting the four amendments, I stress that the issue at stake tonight is one of great concern to the vast majority of people in this country. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has paid considerable attention to industrial relations over a long time, has not grasped the fact that most people in this country are strongly opposed to the closed shop for the evils that it has brought. I am sure it has been said before that, whether it appeared in the Conservative manifesto or not, most people believed that the Tory Government would reduce the power of the closed shop by legislation. Sadly, they have not done so. For that reason, some of us have taken the opportunity of the Report stage of this Bill to highlight

the evils and abuses of the closed shop.
Many amendments have not been called and the amendments in my name are very modest. Amendment No. 33 merely seeks to ensure that within three years there is a ballot where there is an existing closed shop. Amendment No. 34 clarifies that and states that it is important that all matters that are already part of this clause should be adhered to, otherwise the trade unions concerned would not be recognised as fully fledged. My right hon. Friend should realise that, whether he accepts the amendments or not, the feeling in the country is very strong.
I hope that legislation will be brought forward during the lifetime of this Parliament to protect those people who find it obscene—and I use the word advisedly—to be forced to join a trade union, because their place of work is a closed shop, that is affiliated to a political party that they do not support. That is morally and fundamentally wrong. Labour Members may say that such people can contract out of the political levy. I agree. But by doing so they identify themselves, and it is possible that others will pick on them and their opportunities to progress in the trade union or in the company will be jeopardised as a result.
I hope that my right hon. Friend grasps the principle behind these amendments.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am opposed to the closed shop. I believe that this is an occasion on which those who oppose it should speak out. I fail to understand how anyone who believes in personal liberty could possibly be in favour of the closed shop. I am totally unmoved by arguments that the employers like it.
I have long thought that there is a great danger that the worst bureaucratic features of the employers' and trade union organisations are reflected in one another. I have no evidence that the closed shop is necessary for efficient business. It is not the custom in Europe. As hon. Members know, Europe is much more efficient, in many ways, than British industry. We may soon be arraigned, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said, before the European Court for this practice.
It is odd to hear the argument that one cannot bring in reforms by legislation. This used to be the prime argument of the most die hard Tory lawyers of the last century. It was rightly resisted by the Labour and Liberal Parties. It is now said that it is wrong to legislate for reform and that, at all costs, we must remain conservative and stick to existing practices.
I wish, however, to tread on the toes of my colleagues of the English Bar. I have long maintained that the English Bar has certain elements of a closed shop. I have never understood why a litigant in court should not be allowed to select a man who is not a member of the English Bar to speak for him. I see a distinguished and learned right hon. Member about to rise to his feet.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I was only going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he was suffering—I hope that he never will—from cancer, he would submit himself to an operation by some totally unqualified person. If he would, the analogy is complete.

Mr. Grimond: If I suffered from cancer, I do not see why I should be prevented from seing some quack in whom I believed, who might possibly do me

good. There are some quacks whom I would prefer to some highly qualified doctors.
It is alarming that the present development is spreading into public authorities. For public authorities to enforce a closed shop among employees is totally against not only the principles of liberty but the principles of good administration and government. We are not debating, I understand, the principle of the closed shop. We are debating an amendment that would extend provisions already in the Bill to those already in a closed shop. I cannot see any objection to that proposal.
I cannot pretend to understand the enthusiastic support I am receiving, notably from the Government supporters below the Gangway. I join them, however, in hoping that the Minister, upon whom so many compliments have been showered, will see his way to extending the principle already in the Bill to people who at the moment are outside the provisions. If the closed shop is a matter for ballot, these people should be entitled to ballot.

Mr. Michael Brown: This appears to me to be a great parliamentary occasion. I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others who have spoken. I fully appreciate the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds himself with regard to the closed shop. I feel that he is basically in sympathy with the philosophy that many of us express on the question of the closed shop. I recognise and appreciate but cannot accept the arguments that he has put forward during the passage of the Bill and earlier about the reasons why the closed shop cannot be outlawed. This is not the place to argue the merits and demerits of the closed shop.
It is a good idea for hon. Members to bear in mind what they said during the election campaign. I am conscious that I represent an industrial working-class constituency where many thousands of my constituents who work for the British Steel Corporation, are in a closed shop. The corporation has 16,000 employees in my constituency. I told those people when offering myself for election last


year that I was against workers being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. I consider that if a union is doing a good job, people will join voluntarily.
I agree to some extent with the arguments of my right hon. Friend on the Bill. My right hon. Friend has decided, rightly, that if there is, for better or worse, to be a closed shop, it should be endorsed by at least 80 per cent. of the work force. The 16,000 people who work for the British Steel Corporation in my constituency have already been conscripted against their will into a closed shop—at least, their will has not been tested. They should have the same rights and privileges as are to be afforded under the clause to trade unionists who may have a closed shop thrust upon them in future.
I associate myself with the amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and others. It provides that closed shop agreements be tested every three years. The hon. Member for Keigh-ley (Mr. Cryer) compared ballots for closed shops with ballots at general elections. The views of people change. At general elections, people vote one way one year and another way another year. I do not anticipate that that will happen for some time. People changed their minds between 1974 and 1979, thank goodness. It is reasonable to assume that many steel workers in my constituency have changed their minds after 13 weeks of being led—some might say misled—by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
I have great respect for the local union leaders in my constituency. They did not seek deliberately to mislead, but the effect of their actions was to mislead their members. As a result of the closed shop and because the confederation had such power over its members, those who disagreed with the confederation could not opt out of membership because they would lose their jobs. After 13 weeks' experience and because more job losses are likely as a result of the strike, many people might not afford the confederation the confidence that they once gave it. If a union has to seek endorsement for the closed shop—if that dreaded principle is to become a fact of life for the time being—that will ensure that union

leaders are more responsive to the wishes of their members.
People change their minds about how they vote in a referendum. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, argue that people have changed their minds about the Common Market. They would like the opportunity to express their views again in another referendum. Union members might change their minds about the effectiveness of their union in a closed shop.
I commend the amendments. I understand that there has not been much public discussion on them and that my right hon. Friend might not be able to accept them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said, we are to some extent ploughing a furrow to ensure that the Government will take account of public opinion. For the last three or four months I have been at the sharp end of public opinion in my constituency. At surgery after surgery I have received many trade unionists who are extremely anxious about their position if they dare to speak out against their union's views.
On the whole, Scunthorpe is a moderate town and its union leaders, even though I disagree with them, are moderate men. I am pleased to place on record that there has been no victimisation in my constituency in this instance. The fact is, however, that many ordinary trade unionists have been worried about the possibility of victimisation. The very possibility of having one's union card withdrawn because of a closed shop is in itself sufficient to cause ordinary trade unionists to worry.
I am conscious that time is pressing, so I shall draw to a conclusion. I believe that this proposed test of the closed shop is a reasonable test. In my view, the test of a closed shop which my right hon. Friend has accepted and enshrined in the Bill for future closed shops should be available to those who have been unfortunate enough to become members of a closed shop already where they have not had the opportunity for the ballot now provided for in the Bill.
I understand the difficulty which my right hon. Friend may be in with regard to these amendments, but I think that they are well worth considering and I shall find myself able to support them. I


believe that the Bill will go a considerable way towards solving the problem of industrial relations, but there is still room for some improvement and I consider that these modest amendments indicate the room for that improvement.

Mr. Leighton: I am sure that the whole House has enjoyed the knockabout speeches from hon. Members on the Government Back Benches. Perhaps they did not make much sense, but they certainly gave us some entertainment and amusement.
I greatly enjoyed the characteristically ebullient speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Perhaps, with his agricultural background, he does not appreciate all of the nuances of industrial life, but there was only one thing on which I would disagree with him. In fact, only one thing that he said would I disbelieve. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but he said, prompted by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), that he had letters from people who had suffered under closed shops.
I say now that I do not believe that. I do not believe it, and I should like to see them. We heard about this in Committee. Such letters are very few in number. The hon. Member for Rochdale has one, but I should like the hon. Member for Northampton, North to show me his. I say that just in passing.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), again characteristically——

Mr. Churchill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leighton: No. Sit down.

Hon. Members: Order. Give way.

Mr. Leighton: All right.

Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that several hundred railwaymen lost their jobs when the NUR and British Rail formed a closed shop and that several of them have had to go as far as the European Court of Human Rights in order to seek justice? Is it not a shocking indictment of our present legislation on industrial relations that individuals can be victimised in that way and that they have up to now had no redress in this country?

Mr. Leighton: I am not impressed by that intervention, and I am certain that the hon. Member for Northampton, North does not need the hon. Gentleman's assistance. I have made my statement, and I should like to see those letters. I leave it at that.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member has no interest in the liberty of the individual.

Mr. Leighton: Again characteristically, the hon. Member for Hendon, North went slightly too far, as he sometimes does. I think he will agree that he does not like trade unions. He told us in Committee that he does not want to destroy them completely, but I am sure that he will agree that he does not like trade unions. He certainly does not like closed shops and would like to abolish them completely.
Unlike some hon. Members, I worked for 33 years before I came here on 3 May, and I never worked in anything but a closed shop. I have spent the whole of my working life in closed shops, so I speak with some experience. Perhaps hon. Members might care to know something about real life and real experience—or perhaps they might not.
In Committee—this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who just told me about the railwaymen—I issued an invitation. I offer the same invitation to him. I invited all the members of the Standing Committee to come with me to Fleet Street at night, because that is when we work printing newspapers, and meet people who work in closed shops and ask them what they think. That is an invitation which hon. Members can take up—or live in a dream world of their own.
10.30 pm
Why are these ideas unworkable? The Secretary of State does not need me to help him, and I am certain that he would be embarrassed if I were to do so. In Committee, the Secretary of State said:
 The approach that we have sought to adopt … is a different approach from that of 1970–71. partly because it did not work. Whatever our views may have been at that time, the fact of the matter is that it did not work. I have asked countless employers what they did about the closed shop following the passage of the 1971 Act. They look at one rather sheepishly and say ' We never actually got round to getting rid of it.' That is another reason why I want to be careful this time that what we do we can actually enforce.


As a result of the 1971 Act, all the closed shops in which I worked were rendered void. That Act had no effect. There were no changes. So there are limits to what can be done by law.
The CBI gave evidence in a letter of 26 February, which the Secretary of State quoted in Committee. It said:
The CBI recognise that the closed shop is an established feature of industrial relations practice in some areas of employment. We do not therefore feel that the time has yet come to make union membership agreements unenforceable."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 February 1980; c. 724.]
In Committee we discussed practices in other countries. In many European countries the closed shop is illegal, yet when my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) pointed out that in many of those countries closed shops operate the Under-Secretary said " Hear, hear." In other words, he agrees that they still exist in countries on the Continent where they are illegal.

Mr. John Townend: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that once a closed shop is established it cannot be destroyed? I give the example of the Humberside county council, where a closed shop was imposed by the Labour authority. The Conservative group on that council, of which I was the leader, said in its manifesto that it would abolish the closed shop. It won the election and during its first week of office it tore up the closed shop agreement, and many people in that county council no longer belong to a union.

Mr. Leighton: Tearing up agreements is not the way to obtain good industrial relations. The borough in which I live—which is Tory-controlled—has just introduced such an agreement, but I shall not go into that.
Why do trade unionists seek 100 per cent. membership? A lawyer speaking for the British Government at a European institution said on behalf of the Government—a Labour Government at the time—that
 There is inherent in any capitalist society—and perhaps in any society—an inequity of bargaining power between employer and employee, and it can only be reduced by a closed shop.
I have worked in a closed shop for 33 years. I worked for very rich men. I was a very poor man. The power of

the employer was larger than mine, but if an injury to one man was an injury to all, the employer was careful when deciding whether to pick on any individual worker. I did not feel that I lost any freedom or liberty by being a member of a closed shop. I felt that I had more freedom and liberty.
I should explain how we run our affairs. We call our branches chapels. That goes back to the time when the monks did the printing. I worked for two newspapers. I shall not advertise them. One had the largest Sunday circulation. The hon. Member for Stretford, who is laughing, featured in that paper quite recently, boosted the circulation and gave employment to members of my union. The other was the largest daily selling newspaper.
In one chapel there were 600 members and in the other there were 400. We had quarterly meetings. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are not perhaps interested to know how closed shops are run. If they are willing to listen and understand, I shall explain. We meet quarterly and we fine people if they do not attend the meetings. They are obliged to attend. If any member misses three meetings on the trot, he may be expelled from the union.
The only hall in London large enough to accommodate our chapel is the Beaver hall, which costs £400 a time. Therefore, it costs at least £1,600 per annum to accommodate our chapels and get workshop democracy. The convener and shop stewards on the committee—I have taken part in this myself—are elected quarterly by secret ballot.
Why should anybody be afraid? Where is the loss of liberty? Our own people are running our affairs. We had many managerial prerogatives. Discipline was applied not by the management but by the chapel. There was seniority on the job. If anyone wanted to change anything, he moved a motion. Indeed, after listening to Conservative Members I can say that the standard of debate in our chapels was much higher than in this House.
This is the nearest thing that I have seen, in what is called a closed shop situation, to Athenian democracy. In Athens the regions for local government were made up of 5,000 people, because an orator's voice could reach 5,000 people.
That is how the printing unions run


their closed shops. Any idea that it is an infringement of freedom or that we feel insecure is complete nonsense.
If we had people coming in from outside, we wanted to know that they were competent for safety reasons. Their union cards were their bona fides. They showed that they were capable of doing the job. It is the same with the National Union of Mineworkers. Miners are not prepared to have anyone go in the cage and work underground with them if they are not assured that he is capable and able to do the job.
The idea that closed shops are tyrannical is nonsense. I give an open invitation to Conservative Members to meet the members of my union and ask them about this matter.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Yes.

Mr. Leighton: I have one acceptance. Are there any more? We shall do it through the Heritage group. The hon. Gentleman can meet ordinary workers and see for himself whether they feel that closed shops are tyrannical.

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a remark that I made about 45 minutes ago from below the gangway, I said that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) was a landowner in France. I was entirely wrong. It is his mother who is a landowner in France. Therefore, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Radice: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for distributing land so grandly across the Chamber this evening. However, I do not have land in France, and neither does my mother. She is fortunate enough to have a house in France, which is a little different, regrettably, from having land.

Mr. Budgen: I do not wish to become involved in these conveyancing transactions. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) in his interesting speech, made a serious point when he said that this important debate was primarily about whether the libertarian wing of the Tory Party would be able to persuade the present Government that further legislation was required.
I regard the debate on amendment No. 8 as the most important debate that we have had in these three days. In discussing the principle of the closed shop, we have dealt with many of the more important arguments that have been swirling around in connection with the trade union movement. I have considerable sympathy with some of the arguments that have come from Opposition Members. I agree, for instance, with the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) that over many years the trade union movement has been most strongly and dishonestly blamed for many of the evils of this country—evils which it did not commit.
It is true that year after year Governments have blamed the trade unions for the creation of inflation. Year after year they have been blamed for lack of productivity, for bloody-mindedness and for all sorts of things that are no part of their burden to bear. The trade unions have been deeply disturbed in their own contractual relations because of the effect of inflation. Trade unionists, like all other members of our society, feel the sense of instability and desperation that we all feel when we are uncertain about whether we will keep our relative position or whether we will catch up in the next wage round. We should beware of blaming the trade union movement in a general way.
Nonetheless, I much regret the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accepts, so easily and so readily, the principle of the closed shop. I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who is opposed to the whole principle. There may be good reasons for the Tory Party accepting that principle, but there is one really horrifyingly bad reason, which I hope will not be in anybody's mind tonight—namely, the argument that many industrial managers find the closed shop acceptable and useful. Whatever the Tory Party is or is not, it is not the party of industrial gaffers. It is a national party. It should be concerned with the libertarian interests of all the people.
When I hear people say "Oh, but I have been speaking to such and such a manager in ICI, or the director of environmental services in the Tiddlypush urban district council, and they would


like to have an extension of the closed shop ", I understand that. It is an inevitable follow-on from the years of statutory wage control. The House has not made the trade unions the natural advocates of those who are industrial workers but has made the trade union leaders the policemen.
We have said to Jack Jones, Len Murray and the rest " It is 5 per cent. this year and we appoint you as the policemen to impose that 5 per cent. on your members." The trade union leader has said " But there might be a few chaps in the awkward squad who do not like 5 per cent." and we have replied " Then let us shelve our libertarian instincts and allow you to impose the closed shop upon them. That should shut up the awkward squad."
10.45 pm
We want no more of that. We want most of all further legislation that considers the whole principle of the closed shop. I have voted in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on two other important matters during the Report stage. For example, I voted for the new clause dealing with immunities in tort in respect of secondary action.
One hon. Member dealt with the situation that occurred at Hadfield's. The Bill deals with secondary picketing at Hadfield's but does not deal effectively with the attitude that might be adopted by Hadfield's own workers. If they have to balance the damage that they might do to their firm with their desire to act in solidarity with their friends in other steelworks, they may conclude that they do not want to get involved in secondary action. But if they are to lose their jobs anyway—because they are in a closed shop—it becomes even more important that we review the law on immunities in tort.
We have also considered the compulsory secret ballot, and I was attracted by the arguments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) that if we oblige everybody to have a secret ballot in all circumstances we shall tie the hands of trade union leaders and make it difficult for them to act quickly and efficiently in bringing their arguments to bear upon managements.
But unless members can say to their trade union leader " We have considered the past five or six strikes. On balance,

I do not like the way that you do things and we intend to leave the union ", they have no discipline over their leader. Once again, some of my hon. Friends and I were forced to vote for a new clause which, in detail, we rather disliked.
I say to any of my hon. Friends who have voted in disagreement with my right hon. Friend " Please vote for the amendment. It is the most important." We should be united on the amendment. It goes to the core of the matter. It is not a Right-wing amendment but a libertarian amendment. We are the true repositories of the Disraelian spirit in the Tory Party. Let us unite and ensure that this is not, as my right hon. Friend said, the last chance, but the first chance and that there will be a second and more comprehensive chance to get it right.

Mr. Cyril Smith: My views on the closed shop have been put on record, not only during the Report stage but in Committee, where I moved an amendment to make the closed shop illegal. I was supported by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) but by no other Conservative Members. Indeed, they did not even abstain but voted against the amendment and supported the Labour Members who opposed it.
I believe that the closed shop is an infringement of the liberty of the individual. Any individual should have the right to belong to a trade union and, equally, any individual should have the right not to belong to a trade union.
All those views I expressed in Committee. I dealt with the issue of the free rider, and I readily conceded that that was the hardest argument to answer. I expressed the view that there was a price to be paid for most liberties, and the price we had to pay for liberty in trade union matters was the price of the free rider. If the Official Opposition were saying that that was the only reason for supporting the closed shop, I should be more than willing to consider an amendment that ensured that people who were not in a union but none the less worked in a unionised factory could pay their financial dues to an acceptable cause.
None of those arguments was accepted, and the net result is that the Bill does nothing to make the closed shop illegal. All that it does is to provide that anyone who loses his job as a consequence of the closed shop can claim compensation


for unfair dismissal, whereas before he could not. If the Bill does not make the closed shop illegal, it is not unreasonable for it to make the principle of the closed shop more acceptable to some hon. Members and to the British public. It can never be acceptable to me in the sense that I agree with it, but, if I have to accept it, I should be able to be satisfied that the people who are required to join a union have the opportunity to say whether they wish to be forced to join a union or whether they wish to force others with whom they work to join a union.
The latter principle is accepted in clause 6 in relation to future closed shop agreements. The Bill provides that, in future, for a closed shop agreement to be made legal it will have to be voted for in a ballot by 80 per cent. of the work force in the place where the closed shop is to be enforced.

Mr. Greville Janner: Which is impossible.

Mr. Smith: I do not think it is impossible. We are not dealing here with large constituencies in the sense of people living miles away. We are talking about people employed under one roof. All they have to do is to walk from their machine to a ballot box in the middle of the factory and put the ballot paper in. I do not think that is impossible.

Mr. Janner: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that to get a majority of 80 per cent. of the people eligible to vote in any ballot anywhere is almost an impossibility, wherever they live and whatever they do, because some people will be away ill, some will be on holiday and some will not believe in voting? In any event, does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the chances of this provision working are almost nil and the closed shop in future will be killed off by the Bill? The object of the clause is to kill off future closed shops, and the present ones as well.

Mr. Smith: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, what I know is that if there is not to be a closed shop agreement in the future it will be because at least 21 per cent. of those who work in the workshop have not indicated that they wish to have a closed shop. That is what

the clause means, and 21 per cent. is a substantial minority. I intervened in the speech made by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) when he said that last night we were talking about 15 per cent. having to approve a secret ballot and now we are saying that 80 per cent. have to approve a closed shop. I intervened to say that the comparison should be between 80 per cent. and 20 per cent., not between 80 per cent. and 15 per cent.
Last night, we were trying to protect the rights of minorities. That is what the clause attempts to do. It seeks to ensure that if a substantial minority—in this case, 20 per cent. or 21 per cent.—is not prepared to indicate by putting a cross on a piece of paper that it wishes to have a closed shop in its establishment, the closed shop should not be legal.
That is what the Government have accepted for future closed shops. What they have not done is to make the slightest provision in the Bill to deal with existing closed shops. They have done absolutely nothing to deal with those cases. The amendment which I am supporting simply says that within two years of the passage of the Bill—I shall be perfectly frank, I prefer two years to three years because it means before the next general election—anyone working under an existing closed shop agreement shall have the right to have that closed shop agreement tested under the Bill's provisions for new closed shop agreements.
I could understand it if the amendment said that it should should be re-tested every three or four years. Frankly, I would not be desperately unhappy about such a provision. But that is not what the amendment says. Therefore, one cannot argue that an amendment of this kind will cause constant industrial unrest and upsets and that we shall keep on having ballots and one thing or another, because that is not the case under the terms of the amendment. It is a one-off test of the closed shops which were approved before the operation of the Bill.
At present, more than 5 million people are members of closed shop agreements. My information is that it is something like 5.3 million. A Labour Member said earlier that most of those closed shop agreements included an " easy " clause which allowed people to opt out on grounds of conscience and so on. My


information is that 37 per cent. of the agreements which already exist are tight agreements which do not allow members to opt out, except in very rigid circumstances. Therefore, 37 per cent. of those agreements are known to be " tight " as opposed to " loose ".
It is no use saying that all existing closed shop agreements are all right. We also hear the argument that a lot of people like them and that there have been no upsets. The fact is that many people have suffered very seriously as a result of being forced out of their jobs because they refused to join a trade union under a closed shop agreement.

Mr. John Evans: How many?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman asks " How many? ". I do not know. But I do know that when this House approved the agreement for the Post Office to have workers on its board, it was approved only in order to save the Post Office union from carrying out a witch-hunt against those workers, some of whom had worked there for 30 years, who refused to join a trade union, despite the fact that a closed shop had been introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: " Rubbish ".] It is all very well for hon. Members to shout " Rubbish ", but it may interest them to know that I personally negotiated that agreement with Tom Jackson and Bryan Stanley before it came to the Floor of the House.
It is no good hon. Members asking " How many?" I cannot say whether the figure is 300, 400, 500 or even three or four. However, I know that such people exist. With great respect to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), it matters even if only one person is affected. One individual matters. We cannot say that if a half-dozen people are crucified it does not matter because only six people are involved. It matters to that half-dozen. It is important to them.
11 pm
I believe, as I said last night, that the House has a responsibility to protect minorities as well as to uphold the rights of majorities. There is no doubt that even though they are a minority there are people who have suffered badly as a consequence of the closed shop.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to think seriously about the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Hen-

don, North, myself and other right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative side. It is a reasonable amendment which attempts to do something about the operation of the existing closed shop. It does not establish a new principle for approving closed shops. It merely puts into operation the principle which the Secretary of State has advocated in the Bill for new closed shops.
The amendment will ensure that if we must suffer closed shops we have at least made sure that the people who are caught up in the mesh of closed shops have the opportunity to express agreement about continuing with them.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Despite the levity earlier in the debate, it has been an important and interesting discussion. Unlike some of our debates, it shows the clash of two genuine principles—that of group solidarity and loyalty versus individual liberty. They are principles which are often in conflict in society, and society has to find—and usually does—its own informal balance. That balance differs in different sectors and at different times, but my belief is that if the law is to intervene in helping to find a balance, it should do so to protect the individual, as the clause, unamended, proposes to do. For it is the individual, as opposed to the group, who is in the weaker position.
Dedicated trade union activists see the need to unite in a common purpose as a prime virtue which finds its crowning expression in the closed shop. I was interested in the views of Opposition Members when we discussed the Bill in Committee, because when their minds were freewheeling and they were filling in time making points about each clause they tended to speak as the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has just done of the closed shop as warm, humane and mutually supportive. Such people simply do not recognise the picture of the closed shop drawn by libertarians as a means whereby employees are dragooned and marshalled against their will—and against their best interests—by shop stewards armed with the ultimate power of tearing up their union cards.
I do not believe that either of those extreme views corresponds to reality. Few union members see the union as father and mother. Most of them are critical


of their union and find membership rather a nuisance most of the time. But—I say this to my hon. Friend—they do not believe that union solidarity and effectiveness spring primarily from the closed shop. I believe that that solidarity is often strengthened by the closed shop at the expense of extremists, just as often, as at the expense of moderates. I suggest to my hon. Friends that if the closed shop disappeared tomorrow at the wave of a legislative wand, the forces of loyalty would still be there.
Reluctant to let down colleagues would still be a strong binding factor. So, of course—one should not underestimate this—would the readiness of almost everyone to believe that he was worth even more than his representatives were arguing for him.
The only real question for us is what the law should be. I believe that the ideal is quite clear. People should be free to belong to a union or not to belong to a union. [HON. MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] Some of my hon. Friends say " Hear, hear." I hope that that will be their response to my next remark.
That principle, if enforced by law, would mean banning the closed shop. Our experience in 1971 showed that that could be done. Where closed shops were well established, unions and employers acted in concert to maintain them. I do not approve of that, and most of my hon. Friends do not approve of that, but that is exactly what happened. There was no deliberate flouting of the law. Personnel managers who do their job properly select from the applicants those who they think will fit in best with the interests of the company and the work that it is doing at the time. Where a closed shop already existed in 1971, it was inevitable that that meant taking on those who were members of the union or those who were going to join it.
This clause recognises that reality. It also ensures that those who do not want to join a union in a brand new closed shop will have a remedy if they lose their jobs. It ensures that those who leave a union, for whatever reason, after a closed shop has been established when the Bill is an Act will have a remedy if that closed shop has not been approved by an 80 per cent. vote. That is a high hurdle

to overcome, as Labour Members have indicated.
I have one reservation. Such ballots have the real disadvantage of making it possible for a minority to be denied rights at law which others have, as a result of this workmates. That is not a wholly admirable arrangement. However, it is a concept that we have to accept because of the larger virtue that it produces. But that is one reason why I am reluctant to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst).
My hon. Friend wants to re-ballot both old and new closed shops after three years. I do not believe that that could be done without real disruption to existing industrial relations. What would happen if a re-ballot were organised and 75 per cent. voted in favour of maintaining a closed shop that had been long established?

Mr. Gorst: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily a matter of re-ballotting? In many instances it is a matter of holding a ballot for the first and only time.

Mr. Lloyd: The question that I am putting still remains valid. What happens if 75 per cent. are in favour? Under my hon. Friend's amendment, the closed shop would become null and void. That would bring about strife and dislocation of which the public would not approve. They would not regard it as democratic if 75 per cent. had voted for the continuance of existing arrangements. They would not thank the Government for gratuitously creating conflict where it had not existed and would not exist had it not been for the amendment.

Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend explain why the Humberside county council had no problem when it abolished the closed shop?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is saying as he has his back to me.

Mr. Townend: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will my hon. Friend deal with the issue that I raised earlier? When the Humberside county council abolished a closed shop that had been in operation, there were no problems. How does he account for that?

Mr. Lloyd: There was a determined employer who correctly judged the mood of his workpeople, acted on his principles and ended the closed shop. I hope that many other employers will operate in the same way. That can be done under the law as it exists.

Mr. Robert Adley: What my hon. Friend is saying is sound. The denial of rights to the 75 per cent. would cause conflict, and the suggestion that this measure sought to deny the 75 per cent. rights would create the conflict that helped to destroy the 1971 Act.

Mr. Lloyd: That is right. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem posed by the amendment and the reason why the terms of the amendment do not appear in the Bill as it stands.
There is a second most important argument against the proposed change. Many of my hon. Friends won their seats with trade union votes and they will know that union members are extremely conservative. They have a tendency to stick to the status quo. They would vote " Yes " in most of these ballots. A combination of union and management pressure would encourage them to do so. Hon. Members may say that we should give them the chance to choose. However, the purpose of the clause is not merely that people should vote but that they should reach a particular conclusion.
I oppose the principle of the closed shop. I do not want existing closed shops to be sanctioned at regular intervals by ballots. If Opposition Members were sharp, they would support these amendments in order to confound my hon. Friends. For once, the Whigs could dish the Tories. The Bill will do as much as it can within the law. It will provide compensation for those who lose their jobs as a result of unreasonable exclusion from a union. It will give compensation to those who hold strong personal convictions that they should not belong to a union. Where a demonstrable injustice has taken place, it will provide a remedy.
The Bill cannot go further without running into insoluble problems or becoming ineffective. If that were to happen, it would provide no protection. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment because it will not achieve its objective. I urge them to support the clause in its

original form, because it is realistic and has been shrewdly drafted.

Mr. Stoddart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) on a courageous speech. Some Conservative Members have been wrongly called " wets ". They have come forward and expressed a reasonable point of view. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) is inspired not by liberty but by his pathological hatred of the trade union movement. He has demonstrated that hatred on many occasions. The test of whether oppression exists is whether people kick against it. No one has yet shown that a significant body of people have said that they are oppressed by their trade union agreement. We have not seen any demonstrations, petitions, marches or lobbying of Parliament. As far as we know, hon. Members have received little correspondence on this issue.
Why is there such great debate? It may result from the pathological hatred of Conservative Members for the trade union movement.

Mr. Barry Porter: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) concerning the protection of minorities. Does it matter whether 4,000 people march round Parliament Square, or is it more important that four people have complained of trade union oppression? It is a matter of principle. Not one Opposition Member appears to consider that important.

Mr. Stoddart: I was just about to discuss that point. Many Tory Members not only hate the trade union movement but have no confidence that the people of Britain can look after themselves. By attending their trade union branches and by taking an interest in trade union affairs, people can do whatever they wish within that movement. That they do not do so is an exercise of freedom on their part. They will defend their rights if they feel that they are being taken away.
11.15 pm
It goes further than that. We have heard the boast ad nauseam that 5 million trade unionists voted Tory at the last general election. Are Conservative Members suggesting that those 5 million Tories are so pathetic and inactive that


they cannot take over trade union branches or executives? If they have 5 million people in the trade union movement, they do not need legislation—they could run the trade union movement tomorrow. If the Tories believe what they say, why do they not get off their bottoms and organise the country instead of making stupid amendments to a Bill which will undermine the rights that trade unionists have enjoyed for more than 100 years?
Trade union agreements are not just one-sided. They exist because they have been agreed between employers and trade unions. These membership agreements could be ended by either side at any time. We do not know the consequences of this—they may be bad, and they may be good. The hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) undermined his hon. Friend's case when he said that his Tory friends, on taking control of the county council, ended the union membership agreement within a week. It is already open for trade union membership agreements to be ended if the people involved do not wish them to continue. It is nonsense that we should spend so much time debating these amendments.
Many Tories really want to smash trade union membership agreements because they wish to undermine and weaken the organisations protecting the rights of workers. They have been trying to do this for a long time, and if they pass these amendments they will be well on the way to achieving that goal. I shall vote against the amendments on that basis.

Sir Ronald Bell: At the time of the general election, I was under the impression that the biggest swing to the Conservatives was among trade unionists and that they voted for us because they believed that we would protect them from some aspects of their trade union leadership. It is our duty to fulfil that expectation that they expressed by voting for us.
I had considerable hesitation about supporting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) this evening because, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I am absolutely opposed in principle to the closed shop. The effect of the amendment is to

provide that where 80 per cent. of people in employment vote for a closed shop, there shall be a closed shop. I felt some difficulty in casting my vote in support of that inference. However, one is limited by the practicalities of a Bill at this stage, and the principle embodied in the amendments is embodied in the Bill in relation to future closed shops. Therefore, at the risk of being misunderstood, I shall support the amendment.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) gave us a description of the operation of a closed shop in the printing industry. Instead of being reassured, I got the feeling that I was listening to some sort of " Gulag Archipelago ". Everybody had to attend. A person who failed to attend for three meetings running was expelled. In a closed shop, I presume that he was not merely expelled from the union but expelled from the job in which his skill rested and was turned out on the labour market with, I assume, virtually no chance of re-employment at comparable level. That does not seem much of an argument in favour of closed shops.
The objection to the closed shop is not only that of libertarian principle—that people should be free to join or not to join. It is also the link between membership of the union and employment. It is tyrannous that anyone who gets into bad standing with his union can be deprived of his employment or his career without any remedy. I did not hear any arguments from the Opposition Members addressed to that point. I cannot see how this can be reinforced with the practice of a free society. I had reached that conclusion on principle. I am reinforced in it by the fact that the other nations of the world appear to take the same view. This is something that we have almost to ourselves. Something so remarkable must be justified either by the general practice of mankind or by some cogent, specific and logical arguments explaining why it is right. The House has heard neither.
It is a little surprising that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not thought it possible to face up to this problem in the Bill. I believe that he has not done so because he fears that there would be a powerful reaction from trade union leaders and that it is not altogether acceptable to some managers. I agree strongly with hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who have commented


on the irrelevance of the attitudes of certain managements. It is due primarily, I believe, to laziness. It is easy for a management to deal with the closed shop. It saves all the trouble of dealing with people individually. It has led to the rate for the job. It has led to the bad worker being paid as much as the good worker because the management is too lazy to make distinctions. On the trade union side, it is obvious that it would diminish the power of the most militant union leader.
I do not believe that the division of opinion on this matter coincides with political parties. I believe that plenty of hon. Members in the Labour Party think as I do about the closed shop. It is, however, more difficult for them to say what they think than it is for me. On my side, in politics there is a certain temptation to appear to be on the middle ground by adopting some of the postures of trade unionism.
I cherish the memory, in the same month, in 1951, when I heard Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, on behalf of the Conservative Party, say that the Tory Party would go to the stake for the right to strike and Aneurin Bevan say that strikes were an anachronism in the second half of the twentieth century. Aneurin Bevan was right. A strike in our highly complicated, interdependent society is like taking a sledgehammer to a computer.
It is lunacy to conduct our affairs in this way. Somehow, we must find a sensible answer which is not so destructive of an advanced society. A small but real contribution will be made to that achievement by supporting the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North has put forward. I shall support it.

Mr. Greville Janner: At least, the hon and learned Member for Beacons-field (Sir R. Bell) has a refreshing honesty and candour about his libertarian approach. No one would accuse him of adopting the posture of a trade unionist. He makes it plain that he dislikes all closed shops and would be rid of the lot. He is clear that he is trying to destroy that form of trade union activity.
The proponents of the clause maintain and pretend that that is not what they are doing. They say that they are pre-

pared to preserve closed shops, provided that they adhere to certain rules. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said that 80 per cent. was reasonable. I invite hon. Members to consider whether any of them would be in the House if they had to achieve 80 per cent. of the vote—whether 80 per cent. of those who voted or, still less, 80 per cent. of those who were eligible to vote. Unfortunately, 80 per cent. of those eligible never vote, even in the bluest of blue areas in the most Tory of Tory constituencies. I see that there is an exception.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in my constituency there is a vote in excess of 80 per cent. regularly?

Mr. Janner: The hon. Gentleman has every reason to be proud of the turnout, and his electorate has every reason to be amazed at its result.
We must consider what closed shops mean. Conservative Members are right to say that a closed shop applies a restriction on freedom. A person who does not join a union does not have the freedom to work where a closed shop exists unless he can opt out under the agreement or has a religious objection. There is a clash of freedoms. Members of a trade union also have a freedom. It is not unrerasonable for them to say " We do not want to work with people who will not join our union. We pay our dues and have made our sacrifices. You may have a freedom to work, but we have the freedom to say that we do not want to work with you." If Conservative Members do not recognise that view, they have no understanding of the basic philosophical difference which lies at the root of this important debate.
There is a clash throughout our law. There is a clash between those who want to have freedom of speech and those who do not wish to be defamed. There is a clash between those who wish to march through our streets with then-banners, crying racist slogans, and the freedom of others not to have their lives disturbed. The question is where we should draw the line.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield draws the line in favour of people who say that there should be total freedom to work without closed shops. He is entitled to be wrong—it is a free country.
We take a different view. We say that on balance we consider that ordinary working people have the right to say that they have built up their trade union movement and have induced their employers to agree to a closed shou which the Bill rightly refers to as a union membership agreement, under which workers agree to join a union, pre-entry or post-entry. They are entitled to that freedom.

Mr. John Evans: Will my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that when someone approaches a closed shop and does not particularly want to join a union, he has a freedom? The shop steward will inform that person that certain wages and safety conditions have been established for the benefit of members. He will say "You are free to join us and join our trade union, or you are free to find a job elsewhere. The choice is yours."

Mr. Janner: Yes, I agree, but the choice is, of course, a limited one, in the same way as we have a limited choice in all other aspects of our life.
I take the view that, when there is a substantial majority of people in favour of a closed shop, it is on balance right that the closed shop should be allowed to exist if the union and the management agree to it.
The logical outcome of the amendment is that we should return to the situation which existed between 1971 and 1974. I wonder whether hon. Members recall that. At at that time, in the absence——

Mr. Marlow: Were there ballots on closed shops between 1971 and 1974? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that throughout the country there are probably at this moment a great number of closed shops the members of which do not want to be in a closed shop? How on earth can they get out of a closed shop situation unless they have the ballot which we are suggesting?

Mr. Janner: There are millions of people who deeply regret having this Government, but they have to put up with them for the moment. In our democracy we have to put up with things that we do not necessarily like, because no democracy and no system is perfect. Any system which allows the present lot to be elected as the Government is far from

perfect, but people have to put up with it until the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: " Yes, a ballot."] Sometimes a ballot takes place and the results are very unsatisfactory.
From 1971 until 1974 closed shops were to all intents and purposes unlawful. With the exception of those arrangements which were called agency shop agreements, of which there were only a couple, one of them being among seamen, all closed shops were theoretically unlawful. What happened in reality was that the closed shops remained in being in spite of their being unlawful, because a management wanted them to remain. They remained in being partly because the trade unions said that they would not have these arrangements destroyed, and they remained in force also—hon. Members ought to recognise this—because practical people who work in industry, as one hon. Member on the Government Back Benches courageously said, ordinary personnel managers and industrial relations managers, generally prefer to work in a closed shop situation.
That is the view taken by managements not, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, because they cannot be bothered to negotiate with individuals. In the large organisations in which people work, one cannot do that. It is not merely convenient but right to have these arrangements, because one can then negotiate with an integrated work force and its elected representatives. That is the way to have good industrial relations.
The divide-and-rule system so beloved by Conservatives destroys good industrial relations, and the sort of system now proposed, tacked on to a Bill which is bad enough already, will achieve the ultimate destruction of such industrial relations in exactly the same way as they were destroyed between 1971 and 1974.
Conservative Members are fully entitled, as we are, to have their philosophical beliefs, but when they are dealing with legislation they ought to have regard to the havoc that those beliefs may cause if they are implemented through the sort of action recommended by hon. Members tonight, whose speeches reveal that they have not a clue about the way that industrial relations operate on the shop floor and how the law forces people into situations where it is not the responsible trade union leaders, as they call them.


who succeed, but the breakaways, the independents, the wildcats, as they choose to call them, or what they regard as the extremists, who can take action because the others do not have the power.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will my hon. and learned Friend also refer to another freedom—the freedom or licence of employers not to have a trade union at their place of work?

Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend is correct. The removal of the recognition procedures by the Bill without their replacement by other measures is a further invitation to chaos.
These are bad amendments, tacked on to a bad Bill. If they are implemented, the result will be disastrous. I trust that the House will recall what happened in the past when similar arrangements were made and that hon. Members will join together to reject this extremely ill-thought-out and bad amendment.

Mr. Prior: I hope that the House will forgive me for a moment if I pay a short tribute to Sir John Methven, who died this afternoon. He was a powerful personality, and he made an immense contribution to British industry and to the Confederation of British Industry. In public he was a powerful advocate for his case, and in private he was a warm and very gentle man. The nation is very much the poorer for his passing from us. I thought that the House would like to join tonight in sending our sympathy to his widow. [Hon. Members: " Hear, hear."]
Once again, we have had a serious debate, at times quite light-hearted, but underlying the light-heartedness a serious debate. It was not an easy debate for me to answer. I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends who have made kind remarks about me—but who have then said that despite those kind remarks they intend to vote against the Government tonight.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Do not worry. You have friends over here.

Mr. Prior: That is the sort of remark that always worries me.
Passions have always run high on the subject of the closed shop. The debate has been wide. I should like to try,

within the rules of order and within the rules of the amendments, to find a message to convey to my hon. Friends, to the House and to the country.
All Conservative Members—and, I suspect, some Labour Members also—find the closed shop objectionable. Therefore, in Opposition we gave considerable thought to how best we should proceed on this issue. There was much debate and discussion on the subject, and we always came back to the approach that is embodied in the Bill.
Our paramount concern throughout has been to provide effective and proper safeguards for the individual. But we also had to recognise that a simple attempt to ban closed shops would be ineffective. Worse, trying to outlaw the closed shop would sometimes be harmful to the individuals concerned. The evidence of the 1971 Act in this regard suggests that informal agreements-agreements under the counter—may continue even if formal ones are banned.
Speaking about closed shops, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that it is tremendously important—he was speaking as a lawyer—that we do not pass legislation that we cannot enforce. There is a real danger—this was borne out by the experience last time round—of passing legislation which cannot be enforced. Such informal agreements as then result may restrict the individual's right to work far more than an open agreement which is regulated and limited.
The belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Budgen)—which we all share—is consistent with what we seek to do in the Bill. We are seeking to protect the rights of the individual within a closed shop situation.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Prior: I will, but I do not want to give way too many times.

Sir N. Bonsor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall be extremely brief. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the consequence of the legislation as now formed is to protect—and rightly protect—the 54 per cent. of the manual work force not yet in closed shops but to


abandon with no hope for the future the 46 per cent. who are now in closed shops?

Mr. Prior: I do not accept that for one moment. I shall, I hope, go on to convince my hon. Friend why that is not so. From the Government's point of view, the proposal, which could make formal agreements null and void, is fraught with dangers and risks.
There is another vital consideration that the Government have to bear in mind. The Bill deals with specific union abuses and bad practices, and I believe that it does so adequately and effectively. At the same time, we must see that in doing that we do not hamstring industry and prevent employers and managements from getting on with the job.
In seeking to tackle the problems of industrial relations, we must make sure that we do not create more problems than we solve, that we do not undermine managements and responsible union leadership and that we do not create more disruption and unrest rather than less. That consideration is reflected in the whole character of the Bill. That is why we are not setting out to impose rigid blueprints from on high. Rather, our whole approach has been to establish satisfactory ground rules which can be built on by all concerned throughout industry.
In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) recognised in what he said that that was happening. He went into some detail about a recent survey which showed that the vast majority of closed shops were now recognising that proper protection for individuals must be written in. That is something that we need to see, and it is beginning to happen. It is an approach which seeks to provide workable remedies and to restore the opportunity for people in industry to sort out their own problems in a flexible and practical way. I believe that this approach fits in well with the mood of the time.
The new approach does not reveal itself simply in a change in attitude to the closed shop or in a secession by employers from closed shop agreements, though employers are free unilaterally to end such agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) talked about Humberside doing just that. That was their judgment. Obviously, in their case it was correct. Other manage- 
ments are free at any time, if they believe in their judgment that it is right for their industrial relations and for their work force, to do so.
It is increasingly clear that employers and managements, where they think it necessary to maintain closed shop arrangements, are paying more attention to the protection of individual rights and are not inhibited in their bargaining stance by the fact that a closed shop may exist. The TUC has shown its awareness of the possible dangers in inflexible closed shop arrangements by the guide that it put out a year ago.
The general approach of the Government has two main strands. First, we want to support employers in adopting a firm and responsible approach to closed shops which may be proposed or to which they are already party. Secondly, we intend to deal with the abuses of existing as well as new closed shops by providing individuals with rights which will deter unions or employers in the circumstances of the closed shop from unreasonably seeking to deprive a man of his right to work because of his sincere beliefs.
11.45 pm.
I come to the points that I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. The Bill contains a number of important provisions. It does not do justice to the Bill simply to point—as some of my hon. Friends have done tonight—to that part of clause 6 which deals with ballots for new closed shops entered into after the Bill becomes law. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was quite wrong to say that the Bill does nothing for existing closed shops. I hope that in the next five minutes I shall prove that it does a good deal for individual protection within closed shops.
First, the Bill provides protection for those who may be unreasonably excluded or expelled from their union in a closed shop. The impact of that should not be underestimated. It will reinforce responsible trade union behaviour, diminish the possibility of intimidation in closed shops and support individual members in resisting what they regard as unreasonable demands from their unions.
Secondly, clause 6—in addition to providing for ballots where new closed shops


are entered into—will provide protection for existing non-union employees in both existing and new closed shops and for those who object, on grounds of conscience or any other deeply held conviction, to being members of any trade union whatsoever or to a certain trade union. That significant new protection will apply also to existing as well as new closed shops. Together with the other measures, it will help to prevent the closed shop from being exploited to the detriment of individual rights.
Thirdly, the protection afforded by clause 6 against unfair dismissal in a closed shop will be reflected in, and reinforced by, the protection provided by clause 14 against action by the employer short of dismissal. Fourthly, clauses 9 and 14 will have the effect of deterring trade unions from exercising pressure by way of forming, organising, procuring or financing industrial action, or even threatening to secure dismissal.
Fifthly, there is clause 16. My hon. Friends have said much about employees and employers who may find themselves locked into closed shops against their will. There is the notorious example of those employers and employees who have been the victims of the activities of SLADE and who have been dragooned into closed shops. Nobody has been more vehemently critical than I of such tactics. Clause 16 will enable employers who have been affected by the action of SLADE and any similar employers to terminate the closed shop arrangements into which they may have entered unwillingly, without fear of secondary industrial reprisals being taken against them.
Finally, I have undertaken to produce a code of practice on the closed shop under the provision of clause 2. That will cover the question of a periodic review of support for closed shop arrangements. Major employer groups have said to us that reviewing the level of support for closed shop arrangements will need careful handling if it is not to be exploited and that is should, therefore, be handled in a code. I endorse that view, and the code will provide clear guidance for employers and unions on the matter.
The Government have to consult widely under clause 2, and later this year further advice and guidance will be given in the code of practice. The Government will be

looking to the various people who should be consulted on the matter, and I am confident that, on a broad front, they will encourage managements to reappraise, on a continuing basis, whether the closed shop agreements to which they may be party are really necessary in current circumstances. That voluntary effect, together with the statutory back-up that I have described, will lead us progressively, and in a practical and realistic way, towards the goal that my hon. Friends and I have in common.
The Bill incorporates a range of provisions that will help to prevent the abuses to which the closed shop can give rise, to encourage responsible employer and trade union behaviour and to support employers in taking a hard and realistic look at their existing closed shop arrangements.

Mr. Gorst: I readily concede that my right hon. Friend has made all the provision that he has enumerated on behalf of those existing and future members of closed shops, but he has not explained why the procedure for future closed shops is not exactly the same as for existing closed shops.

Mr. Prior: To take action before a closed shop comes into operation gives employees an opportunity of deciding whether that is the way that they wish to go. If we do that for all existing closed shops, we shall be getting deep into the whole problems of the practice of industrial relations on the shop floor.

Mr. Budgen: What does that mean?

Mr. Prior: It means that having a ballot of the existing work force in those circumstances can result in the whole way in which employers, in certain circumstances, have conducted their negotiations being put at risk. It could, and would, lead to an enormous amount of industrial trouble. That is the advice which we have and why we believe that it is better to approach the matter through a code than by writing it into legislation.
I must tell my hon. Friends that there is a lot of difference between introducing the provision for new closed shops, where the situation has not existed before, and introducing it for closed shops that have perhaps been in existence for many years.

Mr. George Gardiner: And perhaps for only a few years.

Mr. Prior: Many of the most effective and strictest closed shops have been in operation for many years and existed all through the passage of the 1971 Act as well.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too deeply involved in the 80 per cent. clause and so on, will he explain how the fact that an employee who loses his job as a consequence of a closed shop has the right to sue an employer for dismissal is a deterrent to the trade union?

Mr. Prior: Under some of the provisions in the Bill, the employer can enjoin the union in the action that the employee brings for unfair dismissal. That is designed so that we do not get a situation where an employer, having been forced by a union to dismiss an employee, feels that he has no redress against the union. That is written into the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Amendment No. 8, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North, provides that a closed shop agreement that came into force before the Act comes into operation will be deemed null and void unless confirmed by a secret ballot carried out in accordance with new section 58A of the 1978 Act within two years of the passing of this Employment Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) proposes that the time limit should be three years instead of two.

The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) amend the ballot provisions of the new section 58A and provide that a union membership agreement shall be regarded as approved if a ballot has been held on the question within the three previous years. He is tackling it a different way, but the effect would be almost the same If he will forgive me, I will not go into the details of amendment No. 34 at this stage.

As I said yesterday, I do not propose to shoot down the amendments on technical grounds, though I owe it to the House to point out that they all have technical flaws. Leaving them aside, how does the approach embodied in the amendments differ from that of the Government? It does so in two crucial respects. First, the amendments are far

wider in scope than the Government's intentions. The voiding of closed shops—the device in amendments Nos. 8 and 34—represents a return to the 1971 Act, and the experience of that Act was that voiding would not work because closed shop arrangements would continue. Indeed, driving such practices underground might result in their operating in a more illiberal and arbitrary fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield goes even further. Not only would an unapproved union membership agreement be null and void, but the trade union could no longer be regarded as registered as an independent trade union for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. Again, without going into great detail, my hon. Friend would not be taking away immunities from the trade union. He would be dealing, for example, with the disclosure of information, redundancy, consultation and so on, and I do not think that that is what he is seeking to get at.

The second respect in which my hon. Friend's approach differs from the Government's is as follows. The Government's basic approach, in accordance with their philosophy generally with industry, is to facilitate, encourage and assist. The approach proposed by my hon. Friends would not allow industry to exercise its judgment. Action by managements and trade unions would be required within two or three years as the case may be. This is not the flexible approach that we need to encourage, and we must prepare the ground for managements to take the lead on all of these matters. It would not help industry to have such requirements imposed upon it.

Whilst I respect the view of my hon. Friends who believe that industry and management do not matter and that we simply have to protect the individual, I believe that we are protecting the individual in the Bill. I do not want to put the House in the position of passing legislation which it cannot enforce or to put the individual in a worse postion because the practice goes underground. It is no part of the Government's policy to keep on telling industry what it has to do. We have to listen to industry. We are talking the whole time about wealth creation, and we need to carry industry with us. I have spent years trying to get from industry a reasonable position.

I believe that we are protecting the individual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wishes us to do, yet we are leaving with industry the flexibility it needs where there are existing closed shops. In the past couple of years or so, the pressures have been very much against the imposition of closed shops. I warned right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches that that would be so at the time of the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act and after the railwaymen's dispute. It is the pressures since then that are resulting in better forms of trade union membership agreement which protect individual rights.

So I believe that we are approaching this in the best possible way, and it would not help industry to have such requirements imposed on it, particularly when the sanctions proposed risk undoing the protection we seek to provide. Surely it is better to point the way and allow managements to take action as and when they see fit.

The amendments would require action irrespective of its timeliness or the delicacy of other issues which might already be under negotiation. That is not the way for a Conservative Government to help industry or those who work in it.

As I said at the outset, the Government's proposals in this area echo the whole tenor of our approach in the Employment Bill. We are seeking to deal effectively with specific abuses and problems in industrial relations. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends, and Liberal Members as well, on that point. In framing these provisions, it would be folly to discount totally the views of those in industry who must live with the law when it is made. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will give satisfactory safeguards on closed shops to individuals and will also be acceptable to those who will be directly concerned with working them.

12 midnight

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell) said that he thought it was lunacy for us to conduct our affairs in this way, in that if we did not take a firm stand industry would continue in its old ways, that that would be comfortable for industry and so on. I must reject that view. We in this House have seen the decline of our

nation's industrial performance over the last few years. We must listen to and understand the problems of industry if we are to achieve the improvement which we need.

I believe that the operation of the closed shop in a number of instances has been detrimental to the rights of individuals. I have dealt with individual cases, just as the hon. Member for Rochdale has done and just as many of my hon. Friends have done. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We have had long correspondence and talks about a bill poster from British Rail. There is no doubt that feeling in the country again runs strong about the need for protection for individuals who find themselves within a closed shop, which means that they must either tolerate what they do not believe in or lose their jobs.

Mr. Mark Wolfson:: Does my right hon. Friend agree or disagree with the proposition that the closed shop has had not only the detrimental effect upon individuals to which he has just referred but also, on many occasions, as detrimental an effect on productivity, and that unless that is put right we shall not move forward?

Mr. Prior: I go along with my hon. Friend with regard to the individual, and I go along with him on the question of productivity to the extent that I think that in many cases closed shops have been comfortable arrangements between management and unions. Comfortable arrangements are not always the best. On the other hand, there are many examples of closed shop arrangements, where the management has known exactly with whom to negotiate, which have prevented a great deal of industrial strife.
I do not believe that it is part of the Conservative Party's philosophy to write into the law what the practice should be. Our job is to protect the rights of the individual. That is what we are in this House to do. That is what I believe our proposals in the Bill will do.
The hour is late. We have had a long debate on this subject. Indeed, during the last three days we have had a number of debates in which many problems have been raised by my hon. Friends. It has been no easy task for me to resist their amendments, but I do


resist them on the basis that I desperately want to see industrial relations taken out of this House. I want to see a basis of law which is acceptable to both sides of the House and to all sides in the country.
I believe that the approach which we are adopting on the closed shop is a sensible one in that it protects the rights of the individual while at the same time recognising many of the facts of life in British industry today. That is the sort of pragmatic Tory approach which we have always fought for and followed. I hope that we are not going to change that approach tonight.

Mr. Varley: When this debate started, the Opposition thought that perhaps we might move quickly to the next group of amendments. I make no complaint about the fact that we have spent a considerable amount of time on the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), because it deals with an important subject.
But the next group of amendments also concerns individual rights and freedoms, and I hope that Conservative Members will remain in their places in considerable numbers so that we can go through the amendments which deal with the monstrous provisions in the Bill which will take away the unfair dismissal rights of newly established firms employing fewer than 20 people.
Those provisions will create a new caste of workers. [Hon. Members: " Come to the amendment ".] I will come to the amendment, but there are important minority issues that will come up later during this sitting and we hope that hon. Members will take them as seriously as they appeared to take this issue. [Hon. Members: " What about your friends? "] My hon. Friends will take them seriously, too. Though the Bill may have the approval of some Conservative Members, there is no doubt that it destroys some of the rights and freedoms of individuals.
I wish to join in the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State on the tragic death of Sir John Methven. I join with him in sending sympathy to the wife and family of Sir John. I had many a tussle with him when he was Director-General of the CBI, and I cannot say that I agreed with his approach on many occasions. But there is no doubt that he

brought a new vigour to the Confederation of British Industry.
That brings me to the point I wish to make about this group of amendments. One of the things that Sir John Methven did was to establish the CBI conference. So far there have been two conferences, the second of which took place in November last year.
The CBI debated the closed shop at that conference. A proposition which was before the conference was not unilke the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hendon, North. Some interesting comments were made at that conference, though I know that that will not impress the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) because he does not care a fig for what industrialists think about this issue. The Secretary of State was right, however, when he said that if we pass industrial relations legislation we must consider how management and trade unions in industry will operate that legislation.
The CBI discussed these matters last November, and Mr. Graham Turnbull of the General Council of British Shipping said that British shipping operated a closed shop. He said that there were no problems and that no employee had lost his job. He said that the industry was convinced that existing arrangements contributed to good industrial relations and that any changes as a result of legislation would cause considerable and unnecessary upset. That was his view.
When the Industrial Relations Bill was going through Parliament in 1971, it was suggested that the closed shop should be banned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has reminded me that during the proceedings on the Bill the then Conservative Government had to introduce amendments to cater for the merchant shipping industry as well as Equity and some other organisations.

Mr. Clifford Rose also had something to say at that CBI conference about the closed shop.

Mr. Marlow: Mr. Marlowrose——

Mr. Varley: I think that I should get on. I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I did not interrupt him. I shall get on as we should come to a Division soon.


Mr. Rose reminded the CBI conference that the closed shop was nothing new. The conference report states that he
 reminded conference that the closed shop was nothing new—it had certainly been around as long ago as 1867. In his view employers should not give so much emotive attention to the subject; the approach should be coolly logical. There was no point in pretending that there was no case at all for the closed shop in the light of the long experience of it in many other industries.
There are many other quotations that I could use from the CBI Conference. It is not all one way.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Mr. Cyril Smithrose——

Mr. Varley: I give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) as I think I have referred to him.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman proceed to tell us the result of the vote at the CBI conference in the debate to which he has referred?

Mr. Varley: By a very narrow majority the resolution was approved. Sir John Hedly Greenborough reminded delegates of standing orders and said that the resolution had not been carried by a sufficient majority. He told the conference that the issue would have to be remitted for further consideration by the CBI.
By no means is British industry in favour of what the hon. Members for Hendon, North and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) want to do. They must take that into account. Perhaps Conservative hon. Members are not concerned about that, but it is a feature that concerns my right hon. and hon. Friends. We wish industry to function efficiently, to reach the boundaries of possibility, to increase overall production and to achieve higher performance.
I refer to a document that might appeal to some Conservative Members. It is entitled "A Christian enquiry into compulsory trade union membership". It describes itself as "An Anglican Comment on Current Affairs ". There is a foreword by the Right Rev. Robin Woods, Bishop of Worcester. There is a saying that the Anglican Church is the Conservative Party at prayer—[HON. MEMBERS: " Get on with it."] It is going to be a very long night. I must not be provoked into making a long speech.
The Anglican Church states:

A closed shop can be seen as a logical culmination of the right of working people to combine to protect and advance their interests as they see them… Benefits negotiated by unions apply to everyone, whether members or not, and resentment caused by ' free-riders' who gain the advantages without accepting the obligations of membership or paying the dues will be avoided.
That is the Anglican Church—well, it is the study group of the Anglican Church. It concludes:
 We therefore welcome the exemption clause present in the 1976 Act. The fact that broader tolerance is left to the parties themselves as they establish Union Membership Agreements, is, in our view, also to be approved… We urge that individual Agreements deal adequately with the local situation in an atmosphere of understanding and tolerance.

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormackrose——

Mr. Varley: That is what I urge Conservative Members to do. They should approach the issue with understanding and tolerance.

Mr. Cormack: Mr. Cormackrose——

Mr. Varley: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has only recently come into the Chamber.

Mr. Cormack: No.

Mr. Varley: Even if he has been here all evening, there is no reason why I should give way to him, and I do not give way to him.
I quoted what leading members of the CBI had to say about the closed shop. I have quoted the Anglican study group. The Royal Commission of 1965 to 1968 came out firmly against the prohibition of the closed shop. Its members included distinguished industrialists and trade unionists. I have quoted the recent survey produced by the Department of Employment in November 1979, in which provisions were being made for genuinely held personal objections to belonging to a trade union.
I think that the Secretary of State is right to reject the amendments of his hon. Friends. If we are to make progress in industrial relations, it will be on the basis of being able to come to terms with the closed shop, by ensuring that those who have to do the negotiations make proper provisions for those who have genuine conscientious objection, which is the practice now and has been for some time by the majority of trade unions, by building


on the guides that were set out last year by the TUC, and by ensuring that we move in that direction. That is the only hope that we have for sound industrial relations.
The Opposition will be voting against the amendment of the hon. Member for Hendon, North.

Mr. Gorst: With respect to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), the replies of both Front Benches may satisfy the requirements of the triple pillars of the corporate State—the TUC, the CBI and the Government—but hon. Members of all parties have sought a balance between the power of collectivism

and the rights of the individual. That has been at the heart of our debate. The amendment does not favour either unfairly. It is a compromise, because it fails to breach the objections of principle to the closed shop that have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends. It merely mitigates their incidence. The amendment could not have been milder. It is well within the principles and practice of the Bill. I regret that I have to ask my hon. Friends to join me in pressing the issue to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House Divided: Ayes 49, Noes 477.

Division No. 265]
AYES
[12.15 am


Aitken, Jonathan
Fry, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bell, Sir Ronald
Gorst, John
Rost, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br-hills)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brinton, Tim
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hannam, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hawksley, Warren
Steel, Rt Hon David


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Budgen, Nick
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lawrence, Ivan
Waller, Gary


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Ward, John


Churchill, W. S.
Loveridge, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marlow, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin



Dickens, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dover, Denshore
Neale, Gerrard
Mr. George Gardiner and


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr. Christopher Murphy


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Porter, George



NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Adams, Allen
Bowden, Andrew
Cockeram, Erlc


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Alexander, Richard
Bradford, Rev R.
Cohen, Stanley


Alison, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard
Coleman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Brittan, Leon
Cook, Robin F.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cope, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Tom
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Corrie, John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Costain, A. P.


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Cowans, Harry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buchan, Norman
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bulmer, Esmond
Crowther, J. S.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Burden, F. A.
Cryer, Bob


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butcher, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butler, Hon Adam
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Dalyell, Tam


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Best, Keith
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cartwright, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Blackburn, John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Dempsey, James


Blaker, Peter
Channon, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Dobson, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Dormand, Jack


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Dorrell, Stephen




Douglas, Dick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Mather, Carol


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Dubs, Alfred
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Mawby, Ray


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Home Robertson, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dunlop, John
Homewood, William
Maxton, John


Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Patrick


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hooson, Tom
Maynard, Miss Joan


Durant, Tony
Horam, John
Meacher, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter
Mellor, David


Eadie, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eastham, Ken
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Mikardo, Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Huckfield, Les
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Eggar, Timothy
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Elliott, Sir William
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miscampbell, Norman


English, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Evans, John (Newton)
Janner, Hon Greville
Moate, Roger


Ewing, Harry
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Monro, Hector


Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Moore, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Fell, Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Field, Frank
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Morton, George


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fitt, Gerard
Kerr, Russell
Myles, David


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Needham, Richard


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kimball, Marcus
Nelson, Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
King, Rt Hon Tom
Neubert, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Newens, Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry
Newton, Tony


Ford, Ben
Lamond, James
Normanton, Tom


Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Norman
Nott, Rt Hon John


Forrester, John
Lang, Ian
Ogden, Eric


Foster, Derek
Langford-Holt, Sir John
O'Halloran, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Latham, Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Fox, Marcus
Lawson, Nigel
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lee, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Leighton, Ronald
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Palmer, Arthur


Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Park, George


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)
Parker, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkinson, Cecil


George, Bruce
Litherland, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Parry, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Golding, John
Luce, Richard
Patten, John (Oxford)


Goodhart, Philip
Lyell, Nicholas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Goodlad, Alastair
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pawsey, James


Gow, Ian
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Pendry, Tom


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Penhaligon, David


Graham, Ted
McCartney, Hugh
Percival, Sir Ian


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCrindle, Robert
Pink, R. Bonner


Grant, John (Islington C)
McCusker, H.
Pollock, Alexander


Gray, Hamish
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
McElhone, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Grist, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Grylls, Michael
MacGregor, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Gummer, John Selwyn
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McKelvey, William
Race, Reg


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maclennan, Robert
Raison, Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
McMahon, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Haselhurst, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Renton, Tim


Hastings, Stephen
McNally, Thomas
Rhodes James, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McQuarrie, Albert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayhoe, Barney
McWilliam, John
Richardson, Jo


Haynes, Frank
Madel, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Major, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Marks, Kenneth
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Heddle, John
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow. Shettles'n)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Barry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hicks, Robert
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Marten, Neil (Banbury)








Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Squire, Robin
Waddington, David


Robertson, George
Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Stanley, John
Wakeham, John


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Steen, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rooker, J. W.
Stevens, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Roper, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Walters, Dennis


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stoddart, David
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh
Stokes, John
Watkins, David


Rowlands, Ted
Stott, Roger
Watson, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wellbeloved, James


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Strang, Gavin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Straw, Jack
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Scott, Nicholas
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Welsh, Michael


Sever, John
Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Sheerman, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Whitehead, Phillip


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitlock, William


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Whitney, Raymond


Shersby, Michael
Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wickenden, Keith


Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Wiggin, Jerry


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Silverman, Julius
Thompson, Donald
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Silvester, Fred
Thorne, Nell (llford South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Sims, Roger
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Skinner, Dennis
Thornton, Malcolm
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Tilley, John
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Soley, Clive
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spearing, Nigel
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Speed, Keith
Trippier, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speller Tony
Trotter, Neville
Younger, Rt Hon George


Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Sproat, lain
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

EXCLUSIONS OF RIGHTS

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 60 in page 8, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 61, in page 8, line 38 leave out ' two years' and insert' six months'.
No. 62, in page 8, leave out lines 40 to 45.
No. 63, in page 8, line 44, leave out ' twenty ' and insert' four'.
No. 111, in page 9, leave out lines 1 to 3.
No. 64, in page 9, line 9, at end insert ' or was redundancy '.

Mr. Walker: This is one of the neglected but vicious parts of the Bill. The Government have created the impression that the Bill is concerned with containing robust picketing, the closed shop and Government assistance for ballots. We have repeatedly expressed our anxiety about

the parts of the Bill which strike at hard-won individual workers' rights.
This part of the Bill needlessly and provocatively strikes at individual rights because it deprives many workers of their right to complain about being unfairly dismissed. The amendments are aimed at removing that offensive provision or, if that is not successful, mitigating the damage.
I shall not rehearse again all the arguments about the many other much more serious causes of concern for small employers—the impact of the increase in value added tax brought in by the present Government, the enormously increased cost of borrowing money, the impact of price and wage inflation on small employers, the impact of the increase in gas and electricity charges and the increase in rents—but one thing is clear from the mass of evidence available to us.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) in his place, with his responsibility for small firms, because I am sure that he will confirm that the Conservative Party's small businesses bureau places employment protection legislation very low on its list of the matters which are of great concern to


small firms and are causing the growing number of bankruptcies among them. I have yet to meet an employer running a small firm who has been driven into bankruptcy, receivership or liquidation who complains that it was the product of employment protection legislation.
The hard fact is that many employees, on the other hand, will be deprived of basic fundamental rights which Parliament has conferred upon them in recent years. The clause strips from employees who have been employed for less than two years in a firm employing 20 or fewer people the right to complain not when they have been dismissed but when they have been unfairly dismissed. This is what is so iniquitous. It seems to confer on the small employer the right to dismiss whether fairly or unfairly, and I fear that that is how some employers will react to it. They will consider that they have a right to dismiss anyone on whatever grounds they like—whether the colour of people's eyes, whether they were drunk at work, or whatever it may be.
That is wholly unacceptable, and for that reason we have tabled these amendments and intend to press them against the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say " Aye ".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. John Townend: Mr. John Townendrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman wished to speak. Mr. Townend.

Mr. Townend: I wish to speak to amendment No. 111, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understood it, you put the Question and a response has been given from both sides of the House.

Mr. Walter Harrison: You collected the voices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was in fact collecting the voices, but I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has an amendment in this

group, and I think it only fair that he should be allowed to speak to it.

Mr. Townend: My amendment No. 111 would delete paragraph (c) from the new subsection (1). Clause 7 was originally intended to apply only to new firms with fewer than 20 employees, but it was extended by the Government as a concession to all firms with fewer than 20 employees. I believe that to be an excellent move, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wisdom in accepting the arguments of the small business sector.
All of us on these Government Benches accept the need to encourage small firms, as it is to this sector of our business community that we have to look for the majority of the new jobs which must be created. There are two ways by which we can encourage small firms. One is through taxation. We started on that in the Budget last year, and we did much more in the Budget this year. But the second and, I submit, most important way to help small firms is to reduce the burden of legislation and bureaucracy.
Anyone who has any knowledge of the small business sector will know that the one piece of legislation which has caused more criticism and aggravation than any other is the unfair dismissal part of the Employment Protection Act. It has resulted in small firms being exceedingly wary of taking on new staff. I suspect that many hon. Members, when visiting their constituencies and talking to small business men, have been told " I could do with an extra one or two chaps, but I shall not take anybody else on because if I get the wrong fellow I shall end up before the industrial tribunal ".

Mr. Cyril Smith: I keep hearing that argument, and it is not an argument to which, as a small business man, I subscribe. If a small business man refuses to employ people as a consequence of the Act, the corollary is that he is turning down orders which he otherwise could obtain. He employs people in order to produce goods, in order to meet orders. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any company that refuses orders as a consequence of the Employment Protection Act?

Mr. Townend: I do not wish to detain the House at this time of night with a lot of examples, but I know of companies


that are not prepared to expand for two main reasons—taxation and legislation. They are making an adequate living, and they do not want the aggravation.
Therefore, clause 7 is welcome, because it reduces the burden on small firms and it aligns the two-year qualifying period for redundancy with the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal. However, there is one problem. When one looks at the clause in detail, it is clear that whoever drafted it—I am sure that it was not one of my right hon. or hon. Friends, but perhaps it was someone in the Department—had no experience of small businesses or small business men. If he had, he would never have included para-graphp (c), which states:
 The dismissed employee was on being engaged informed in writing of the effect of this section.
That undermines the purpose of the clause—which is to relieve small business men of bureaucracy. Small business men neither understand it, nor do they want to undertake the administration. The last thing that a small business man wants is to get involved in paperwork. Many will never have read the regulations, and in practice they will not give their employees notice of this part of the law in writing when they are first employed. Many never get round to giving contracts of employment until they are challenged. I suggest that Members of Parliament should consider their position as small employers. How many hon. Members give their secretaries contracts of employment? I trust that any hon. Member who has not done so will be prepared to vote for this amendment tonight.
Paragraph (c) refers to the dismissed employee being informed when he was engaged. Does that mean that when a small business man engages a man on a Friday, to start work the following Monday, he will have to give the man a copy of clause 7 of the Employment Act? If he forgets to do so until the following Wednesday, will the man lose the protection of the clause? I suggest that he will.
I have two further specific objections to the clause. It is unusual, if not unique, to place on the employer the responsibility of notifying the employees of the law in this way. The normal practice is that the citizen is expected to know the law.

Worse, if the clause is not amended, many small business men will assume that there is a two-year qualifying period, and, because they have not read the small print and given notice in writing, somewhere along the line someone will be dismissed and will take the small business man to the tribunal, with the possibility that the tribunal will find him guilty of unfair dismissal. That will produce disillusionment among small business men, and they will rightly feel that we have given a concession with one hand and taken it away with the other and that we have not lived up to the spirit of the commitment.
I have been a small business man for over 25 years, and I represent a constituency where the vast majority of jobs are provided in farms, fishing and small businesses. This is a matter of common sense. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take the advice of those who know and understand small business men. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) agrees that they need understanding. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept my amendment, which I am sure he will agree is both practical and necessary.
Paragraph (c), if let in, will destroy the purpose of the clause. I am convinced that that is not my right hon. Friend's purpose. If he agrees to the amendment, clause 7 will be a boon to small business men. It will show that we are not just paying lip service to our support for their cause but are implementing our policy in a meaningful way.

Mr. Prior: I apologise for detaining the House for so long tonight.
A number of important amendments have been tabled to clause 7. Amendment No. 60, moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), would have the effect of deleting the whole clause. Amedment No. 61 would delete " two years " and insert "six months ". Amendment No. 62 would delete the reference to " twenty ", Amendment No. 63 would allow four only instead of 20. Amendment No. 64 would add " or was redundancy " at the end of subsection (2).

Amendment No. 111, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), seeks to delete subsection (1)(c).

My view on the clause is that we need to have absolute regard to doing everything that we can not only to help small businesses which are in existence but to remove any psychological barriers and any impediment in people's minds towards the setting up of new businesses. I say that because so often one hears of people saying " I would set up a business and employ a few people, but I do not want to be bothered with all the labour problems that we have nowadays." That is a usual reaction. It may be that many of those people subsequently set up businesses, but there is a great deal of evidence that we are falling behind many other countries in the numbers of small businesses that we have in this country.

The greatest growth of small businesses in the last few years has been in Germany and Japan and, above all, in the United States. The small businesses will provide the employment of tomorrow. In many instances, the small businesses will provide the large businesses of tomorrow as well. It is a great mistake to think that America is the country of big business. America is a country of small businesses, some of which have become big.

Over the years we have had a fetish about size. I am not against large businesses. I believe that small businesses not only have an enormous amount to contribute, but that, on the whole, their industrial relations are much better than in big businesses.

I do not believe that in 1980, given the independence of the British working man, he will feel that the provisions that we are putting forward in the clause, which do not give him protection for unfair dismissal for two years as opposed to one year, are an imposition on his employee rights. Large numbers of men and women now prefer to work for small businesses because they do not wish to get involved in all the bureaucracy that seems to accompany large business. They are prepared to accept that the relationship between their employers and themselves is generally very friendly but that it may not always be conducted within the strict administrative requirements of the law.

I suspect that, looking at the Benches on both sides of the Chamber, I may find the odd small employer who does not always stick rigidly to the rules—he probably does not have the contracts of em-

ployment that he knows he should have because he has not got round to issuing them to his employees—but who has a good and satisfactory relationship with those employees.

During the Committee stage of the Employment Protection Act 1975, we discussed many of the problems faced by small businesses, with which we are now dealing in the Bill. We tried to move an amendment which would have excluded small businesses from the unfair dismissal proceedings for two years. What we were seeking to do then is even more justified today. The right hon. Member for Don-caster said that other measures which have taken place in the past few months, such as high interest rates and so on—none of which is agreeable to the Government—have had a big impact on the problems of small businesses and their ability to employ labour. That, if anything, makes out the case even more for trying to help small business men. It underlies the principle that we have tried to adopt in the Bill—namely, to help small businesses in any way we can.

We felt that to choose a number of 20 employees and say that in a firm with fewer than 20 employees unfair dismissal should not operate for two years was not an unreasonable state of affairs. I ask my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendment as it would lead us in the contrary direction to that in which we are seeking to go.

Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State will remember that in Committee we discussed the figure of 20, to which he attaches so much significance. He did not answer successfully in Committee the question that I shall now ask and which I hope he will answer. The Secretary of State, like many of his hon. Friends, pontificates at length about assistance to small businesses. Will he say what will happen when a small firm reaches the figure of 20, is expanding and so moves on to 21 or 22? When it goes beyond the magical mark of 20, it becomes embroiled in all the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends tell us constantly is such a handicap to business and industry. Will he say tie intends to solve that problem?

Mr. Prior: Twenty was an arbitrary number. There must be an arbitrary figure in these circumstances.

Mr. Harold Walker: It was plucked out of the air.

Mr. Prior: It appeared that 20 was a reasonable number for a small business man to manage and to do his own book-work. When he goes beyond 20, it is not unreasonable to expect that he will employ an office manager or someone of that nature to do that work for him. When a firm is building up to 20, that would not be justified. That was the logic behind taking the number of 20. If a business is expanding and going well beyond 20, I do not think that it will stop at 19 and not go to 20. When it reaches that size, it will be in a position to employ the necessary office management, which will enable it to carry out the administrative details which are attendant upon running a business today.
We felt that it was an improvement which would have a marked effect on the freedom of small business men to take on labour and help up with our employment and unemployment problems.

Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove paragraph (c)—namely,
 the dismissed employee was on being engaged informed in writing of the effect of this section ".

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington made a powerful case for his amendment. We discussed the matter in detail in Committee when my hon. and learned Friend said of retention of the notification:
 This is controversial, and we have been pressed strongly that this would be a further administrative burden, or, indeed, stumbling block".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 March 1980; c. 953]

At that time we still maintained that, on balance, it was probably right to keep the notification. We have thought about it a great deal since then, and I have been aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Industry. I have never met anyone who is more persistent over a point. If he serves small businesses as well as he has badgered me over the past few weeks, there will not be much wrong with small businesses.

We have looked at the point again and concluded that we should relieve small firms of some of the burdens of the unfair dismissal procedures, including the noti-

fication requirement. We are worried that if we do not take that step much of the good that we believe will result from allowing two years' grace to firms employing fewer than 20 employees will be undone by the notification requirement. We therefore recommend my hon. Friend's amendment to the House.

I still think that we should do all that we can to see that when small firms are issuing contracts of employment they ensure that employees know that there is a two-year requirement. It would be wrong to give the impression to small firms that they had the two-year requirement only to find that, by our keeping in the notification requirement, when someone was dismissed after 18 months he sued for unfair dismissal because he had not been given notification. That would undo all the confidence that would be built up by the two-year commitment.

I have considered the matter carefully and come down on the side of doing all that we can to help small businesses. The case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington is a good one.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely seek clarification. The amendment of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is down for discussion only and is not to be the subject of a separate vote. How can the right hon. Gentleman accept the amendment? Will it not have to be moved in another place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any amendment grouped with an amendment that is moved may, if an indication is given and accepted by the Chair, be moved for a separate vote when we reach it on the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Prior: I have said all that I need need to say, except that I commend my hon. Friend's amendment warmly to the House. It has been tabled in the interests of trying to help small businesses. I do not believe that it will be an impediment to those who work for small businesses. I hope that it will result in greater employment.
I also ask my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendments, which would wreck the clause and the initiative that we are taking.

1 am

Mr. Cyril Smith: I am sorry that the Government have accepted that amendment. I do not subscribe to the view that all small businesses are desperately searching for more employees but are frightened to take them on because of the Employment Protection Act. Of course, I have seen questionnaires. I have received them in my company. If I am asked whether I would like to be relieved of sections of the law which are not entirely to my benefit, I say " Yes ". That does not mean that small businesses are being prevented from taking people on. I just do not believe it.
The hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that he knew of small businesses which were deliberately not expanding and were refusing orders. If the people running businesses turn down orders when labour is available, as it is at present, and are not prepared to expand because they have to give their workers a piece of paper telling them of their rights, I am glad that my money is not in those businesses.
Although, of course, I should like to be relieved of all the form-filling connected with the Employment Protection Act, that does not prevent my expanding my business and taking people on. Even if the argument that this prevents firms from taking people on is conceded, why have the Government gone so far as to take away employees' rights to be told in writing?
I agree with the Secretary of State. I want the Act to be accepted. What is gained by clause 7, having regard to the propaganda value of taking away employees' rights for the sake of avoiding the filling in of a piece of paper? All these forms are printed. There is not a separate letter for each employee. The forms can be bought at the Stationery Office or the printers. All that has to be done is to fill in the detail, giving the hours of work and so on, which takes only five minutes. This procedure applies only to companies which employ up to 20 people, so that at the most it is necessary to fill in 20 forms. Even with a 100 per cent. turnover of labour, it would be necessary to fill in only 20 a year.
This is the sort of propaganda that the workers understand. Much of the propaganda that will be used against the Bill by the TUC will be blindly followed by

people although they will not understand what it is about, but they will understand this. If a worker works for a firm employing fewer than 20 people, that firm will not be required to give him a piece of paper telling him what his rights are. He will understand that. The Government may think that they have taken a great step forward in the interests of small businesses, but my belief is that they have taken a major step backwards in relation to getting the Bill accepted by working people.

Mr. Tony Speller: I often enjoy the robust common sense of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He is totally correct in saying that no firm rejects orders. The extended delivery period of British firms over the last 10 years of increased bureaucracy, as they take the orders but do not expand staff, machinery or capacity, has made us the laughing stock of the world. That is because once many successful firms have reached a certain size they have said " We are big enough ". They take the orders but do not keep the delivery dates, as a result of which they lose future orders.
Many British industries are today falling and failing because people overseas no longer even ask them for quotations because their delivery dates are so awful.
Happily, I come from one of the few areas of the country where unemployment has fallen for the third successive month. But all too often small business, which can comprise three, four, 10, 15 or 20 people, says " We are big enough. We shall not expand.", and the first reason given is always bureaucracy. We cannot abolish bureaucracy at a stroke, but every form which is taken away makes someone that much more available to work, to obtain orders, to control and to produce. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting amendment No. 111.

Mr. John Evans: During our long deliberations on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, we have used various epithets to describe different clauses. This clause can only be described as probably the nastiest clause in the Bill.
I hope that the Secretary of State is ashamed of himself for accepting the verminous little amendment of his hon.


Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). The right hon. Gentleman should recognise by now that he has enough strength within his party not to need to make any concessions to its Right wing. In this context, he did not have to make this nasty concession, which as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) has made perfectly clear, is utterly and totally unnecessary.
Probably for the first time we are creating two classes of workers—those who work for firms with fewer than 20 employees and those who work for firms with more than 20 employees. Lord only knows why we are doing so in this day and age. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if a firm had 19 workers it could not afford to carry out the procedure of informing its employees of their rights, whereas a firm with 21 employees had the necessary office staff to do so. I hope that he will think again about the nonsense of that statement.
We all know that, generally speaking, small businesses are better run than big businesses. Indeed, some of us have tried to make that point on many occasions. Generally speaking, the major reason why small firms disappear is that they are taken over by bigger firms. All hon. Members should be concerned about the number of small and medium firms which have disappeared in takeovers. It is the bureaucracy which has been created in large, multinational firms which has meant the death of so much of British industry.
Indeed, the private sector of the British economy has probably the most centralised bureaucracy of any Western country. In that context, the Lord only knows how small firms will be helped as a result of this miserable little clause. Every honest citizen in the country knows that the real problems of small firms relate to things such as the high cost of borrowing money, VAT, high rates, high rents and difficulties associated with planning arrangements, when small firms are swept out of business because of slum clearance orders. We have gone through all that, both in our discussions on this Bill and in our debates on the Industry Bill.
The Secretary of State praised the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), for his work with small firms.

I am bound to point out that the Under-Secretary built up a career as the leading brain behind the Tory-based Small Firms Bureau. The hon. Gentleman sent out questionnaires planting the idea in the minds of small business men that the Employment Protection Act was creating all their problems.
I do not suggest for a moment that the occasional problem might not have been created by that Act. I accept that. If we pass legislation offering protection to workers it is common sense that we will probably create difficulties. But the whole thrust of the employment protection legislation was to set up a new deal in British industry.
While I recognise that the vast majority of small employers are good employers, nobody can deny that some of them are crooks, rogues and vagabonds. If anyone disputes that I suggest that they listen to the " Checkpoint " programme on BBC every week. They will hear there of the crooks and the scoundrels. However, the overwhelming majority of small firms are well run and enjoy good industrial relations. However, no Conservative Member can deny that. There is a tiny minority of crooks, villains, rogues and vagabonds in this sector and they are the people who will benefit from this legislation.
Any decent employer will honour the terms of the Employment Protection Act. He will notify his workers of their rights. I think that the better employers in the small firms sector will maintain the existing position and will not accept what is suggested in clause 7.
I cannot understand why, at so late a stage, the Secretary of State has to give way on this miserable little amendment. I suggest that he should start talking in Cabinet about the appalling policies of the Government which are creating a nightmare for small, medium and large firms at a time when jobs are disappearing by the thousand. Yet here we are messing about with a clause like this.
In my constituency a firm which employs more than 400 textile workers is due to close. I have asked the management whether its workers can produce one extra ounce of yarn. The management has assured me that its workers are already giving over 100 per cent. effort and cannot do more to increase the


prosperity and productivity of the firm, which is due to close in nine weeks.
That is the kind of issue we should be discussing, yet here we are messing about with despicable little clauses such as this and with despicable little amendments from Conservative Members. It is a disgrace and a shambles, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for trying to put such a clause on the statute book.

Mr. Leighton: I support the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) in his stand on behalf of the individual. He has been honest and consistent on this issue and he put forward his view during the debate on the previous clause. We shall now see whether Conservative Members are as honest and consistent in their support for the individual. Perhaps we shall see that their support for the individual was hypocritical. The hon. Member for Rochdale has said that the rights of the individual should be equal and should apply equally in small firms as well as in large firms. That is not a bad principle. The hon. Member is speaking up for the rights of the individual.
I have heard a lot from Conservative Members about the rights of the individual. We shall now see whether their views were honest or hypocritical because under this clause workers in small firms, for the first two years, will have no rights. Is that something that we shall write into English law? Are there to be two classes of worker, those with some rights and those with no rights? If Conservative Members think that that is a bad principle, they should be blushing. Certain firms will set up subsidiary companies when their work forces increase to 19 or 20 members so that their workers will have no rights.
1.15 am
There is an idea that small is beautiful, and often it is. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) seems to find that funny. Conservative Members may laugh and think that this is not important. We see hypocrisy written all over their faces when they talk about the rights of the individual. I tell the hon. Member for Grantham that in many small businesses small is not beautiful—for example, small shops, small launderettes and small restaurants whose staff are without trade unions and without proper rights. Those who work for such firms are the weakest in our society. If Conservative Members

are concerned about looking after the interests of the individual, they should reject the clause instead of smirking and laughing unless they want to be branded as hypocrites.
I support the hon. Member for Rochdale. The hon. Gentleman is consistent in looking after the interests of the individual. Either a dismissal is fair or it is unfair. It is fair or unfair whether the firm is large or small. We shall see whether Conservative Members are honest when they speak about supporting the rights of the individual. I support the attitude of the hon. Member for Rochdale.

Mr. Harold Walker: Not long ago the qualifying period for lodging a complaint of unfair dismissal was six months continuous employment. That was the qualification when I was a Minister in the Department of Employment. From time to time I received letters from Conservative Members enclosing complaints from constituents who had been dismissed and who did not come within the six months' qualification. They complained that they had been unfairly dismissed but were denied the right to seek legal redress. Instead of Conservative Members writing honestly to their constituents to tell them that they did not believe that they should have that right, they sent their constituents' letters to me and left me to explain their position.
The Government changed the period of qualification to 12 months. They are now increasing it to two years for many workers. Many of those who wrote to their Members of Parliament when I was a Minister did not know what their employment rights were in this important respect. They had a right to know. One saving grace was the obligation on the employer to tell his employees one basic right. The clause has been described rightly as a nasty little provision. People who wish to complain of unfair dismissal within the first two years of their employment are now to have that right snatched away from them.
I have known the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) for more years than any other hon. Member. I do not often agree with him, but I agree with everything that he has said on this occasion. All that was needed was a simple note to tell new employees that they would not have the right of complaint if they


were dismissed within two years of starting their employment.
When the Bill was presented for Second Reading, we denounced it as a nasty measure that deprived workers of many hard-won elementary rights. It provided that those who started with new firms employing fewer than 20 persons would be denied their right to claim unfair dismissal during the first two years of their employment. In Committee it was extended to all firms—old and new—employing 20 people or less. The measure is worse than the original provision. This is a nasty Bill.
I can assume only that the Secretary of State is trying to placate one of his more offensive and rebellious Back Benchers. He is grovelling to gain a little support from some of the extremist and irresponsible bully-boys on his Back Benches. He is depriving decent working folk of their elementary rights. No hon. Member has denied that small businesses can make a contribution to the economy. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of his hon. Friends are incapable of recognising that employees of small firms also have rights.
During the past few years a powerful lobby has come into being that favours small employers. It is time that some of its supporters recognised that there are some employees who cannot defend themselves. They need support and help. Conservative Members should dredge the bottoms of their consciences and hearts. I can see sneers and sniggers on their faces. Unfortunately, Hansard—unlike the television camera—cannot show the expressions on hon. Gentlemen's faces. I wish it to be put on record that Conservative Members sneer, smirk, and snigger when an Opposition Member speaks on behalf of those employees who stand alone. They need some help and protection. Conservative Members should dredge their spirits—if they have any—and consider whether they can find some encouragement for the small employee.

Mr. John Evans: As my right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, Conserva-time Members smirk, snigger and sneer

when Opposition Members discuss the plight of the hundreds and thousands of individuals who work in small firms. Libertarian barristers and lawyers earlier spoke about the rights of the individual. Is it not significant that we hear a deafening silence from those hon. Members when we discuss real, not theoretical, freedom?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right. The small employee stands alone. He or she needs encouragement, yet has received no crumb of consolation or support from Conservative Members. They have consistently been against the employee of a small firm when a confrontation between the rights of the employer and employee has occurred.
We share in the common concern to support the small business man and to help small employers. However, it is foolish to believe that depriving the employee of his basic rights will encourage small employers to prosper. In the Financial Times of 21 April there was a report of a survey that had been produced by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It discussed manufacturing trends in London and the South-East. The report states:
 An alarming rise in the number of small companies suffering from decreasing domestic orders is reported today by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. In its 15th survey of manufacturing trends in London and the South-East, the Chamber predicts that by about June 35 per cent. of companies will face falling domestic orders, almost double the figure reported last October. Mr. Gabriel Irwin, who compiled the survey, says it indicates that the erosion of the economy's capital base 'is gathering momentum at a frightening rate'.
That has nothing to do with the provisions of the Employment Protection Act or any such legislation.
That which is so damaging to small firms and the economy is entirely attributable to either the policy or the neglect of the Government. If they really want to help small firms, that is where they should turn their attention rather than snatching from employees their basic human rights.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. Ill, in page 9, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Mr. John Town-end.]

Clause 8

BASIC AWARD

Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 3, leave out from " that " to " such " in line 6 and insert
 any conduct of the complainant before the dismissal (or, where the dismissal was with notice, before the notice was given), other than conduct taken into account by virtue of subsection (7), was ".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 66, in page 10, line 4, leave out " whether ",
No. 67, in page 10, line 4, leave out " or after ".

Mr. Mayhew: The effect of this amendment is to limit the scope of clause 8(4) so that it deals only with situations where the basic award may be reduced because of the employee's misconduct before the dismissal but only discovered subsequently.
This amendment arises as a result of our acceptance in principle in Committee of the Opposition's amendment No. 108, which sought to exclude conduct after the dismissal as an element that could be taken into account by the tribunal in considering whether to reduce the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal.
It seemed to be quite wrong that it should be open to a tribunal to take adverse account of conduct by the complainant which took place after his dismissal. That would be basically unjust and we acknowledged that the clause as drafted could give rise to that result. We believe that this amendment overcomes that, and meets the point that was raised in the House of Lords in the case of Devis v Atkins. Although the remaining amendments, Nos. 66 and 67, are not Government amendments, they would be superseded by this amendment if it were accepted by the House.

Mr. Harold Walker: I have had few opportunities during the 100-odd hours that we have debated this Bill to express any gratitude to the Government. I cannot allow this opportunity to pass. I am not sure that the complicated amendment

standing in the name of the Secretary of State meets entirely the point that the Opposition made. If it does, or is intended to do so, I cannot see why the Government were unable to accept the amendments that we tabled.
None the less, I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not only an honourable man in House of Commons terms but an honourable man in the real sense of the term. I am prepared to accept his assurance and to express, for once, a little gratitude to the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 10, line 9, at end insert
' and where the tribunal considers that the employer's conduct, whether before or after the dismissal, has been such that it would be just and equitable to increase the amount of the basic award to any extent, the tribunal shall increase the amount accordingly '.
I was puzzled by some comments of the Under-Secretary of State in reply to an amendment proposed by the Opposition yesterday. His remarks have conditioned what I might have otherwise said about this amendment and its effect on the clause. Clause 9 (1) begins:
 If in proceedings before an industrial tribunal on a complaint against an employer under section 67 the employer claims "——
A number of things ensue, it seems, merely from the claim of the employer. If the Opposition's understanding of that is correct, it is extraordinary that a number of matters should ensue against individuals merely on the unproven claim of the employer. Even though we disagree with the substance of the clause and all that ensues, we argue that the employer should at least be required to prove rather than merely claim.
Perhaps, in the light of his comments yesterday, the hon. and learned Gentleman can convince me that the requirement to prove is not necessary. On the face of things, I am bound to say that we feel that he should be required to prove conclusively what he is claiming before the consequences ensue.

Mr. Mayhew: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself to the right amendment. I think that the happy accord, established on


the last amendment, has been carried forward to this. I know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted to say. I can perhaps say it for him. What the right hon. Gentleman would have said—I am happy, in my professional capacity, to speak on his behalf—is that it is desirable, where the tribunal considers that the employer's conduct, whether before or after the dismissal, has been such that it would be just and equitable to increase the amount of the basic award to any extent, that the tribunal shall increase the amount accordingly.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to make the employer pay a larger sum, by way of a basic award, where the tribunal believes that the employer's conduct, leading to the dismissal, warrants it. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is saying that this is a quid pro quo and that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander because we say that the basic award can be reduced to zero and that there shall not be a minimum basic award of two weeks, no matter how much the complainant's—the employee's—conduct has contributed to the dismissal. That probably states fairly what the right hon. Member for Doncaster would have said.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Mayhew: Having expressed what the right hon. Gentleman would have said, I must add that it is misconceived. There is no analogy. The employee complains that he has been dismissed and his basic award is reduced because of his conduct. That of which he complains he has brought about. The statute provides a scale of compensation for unfair dismissal. It does not provide, and never has provided, for graded scales of compensation according to a moral assessment of the employer. The analogy in the right hon Gentleman's mind does not exist, although I can understand why he might think that it does. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am deeply grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's quid pro quo. I had put a line through amendment No. 68 but I had not remembered to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Minister so that he could follow my example and move on to amendments Nos. 72 and 73. I ask the

hon. and learned Gentleman to bear my remarks in mind when we come to those amendments when his reply may be more relevant to my arguments. I am prepared to accept what he says about the geese and the golden eggs and the quid pro quo. I am happy to leave the matter there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must put the Question, unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Harrison: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Clause 9

CONTRIBUTION IN RESPECT OF COMPENSATION

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 10, line 15, leave out ' claims ' and insert ' conclusively proves '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall consider at the same time amendment No. 73, in page 10, line 25, leave out' he claims '.

Mr. Mayhew: The arguments on these amendments were adduced a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. Walker), and I think that the reasons which he advanced are misconceived. He bases his case on the word " claims" in line 15—if the employer—
 claims that he was induced to dismiss the complainant by pressure 
and so on. The right hon. Gentleman supposes that the word " claims" means that that is all that the employer has to do, but in fact he has to establish by evidence that there is substance for his claim.
By seeking to substitute the words " conclusively proves ", the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to add unnecessary words. I quite understand what is in his mind, but no tribunal would act upon the claim and accede to the request that the person whom the employer claimed


exercised the pressure should be joined until the employer made good that claim by bringing forward evidence.
He has to prove it already, or he has at least to put forward these matters. It is true that he does not have conclusively to prove, but he has to set up a prima facie case.
So I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his amendment would serve no useful purpose, and I hope that, with that assurance, he will be content to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 10, line 25, after ' may ', insert
 before the hearing of the complaint".—[Mr. Mayhew.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

DRUGS (SAFETY)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Morrison.]

Mr. Jack Ashley: The safety of medical drugs is an issue of world-wide concern because, although the benefits from them have been inestimable, the adverse effects can sometimes be devastatingly dangerous. If the fine balance of risk against benefit is tilted the wrong way, it can have a shattering effect on the lives of people. Experience has shown that drugs can blind, deafen, maim and kill.
The important problem of drug safety requires careful scrutiny and should be approached with a sense of responsibility. But I deplore the behaviour of the Secretary of State. Addressing a dinner of the pharmaceutical industry last Wednesday, he referred to
 the ever-popular sport of bashing the pharmaceutical industry ",
and he said that in recent weeks the " industry bashers " had gone to town with the allegations that certain products were unsafe. I presume that he was refrerring to those who have been concerned with Debendox.
Had the right hon. Gentleman attended a meeting I had last week with more than 80 parents of malformed children who believe that Debendox was the cause of their children's deformities, and had he seen their restraint yet their anxiety to ensure that other children do not suffer as their children have suffered, he would not call them " industry bashers ". Their aim is the prevention of handicap, and we should all share that. His abusive, prejudiced and emotive language is regrettable, especially after worried parents, concerned Members of Parliament and a responsible press have handled recent issues with great restraint.
There are various reasons for concern about drug safety, and, as our experience with thalidomide, eraldin, phenacetin and hormone pregnancy test drugs has shown, the process of establishing the danger of some drugs and then preventing their use is slow and cumbersome. Yet the Secretary of State elegantly condemns critics as " industry bashers ". He should substitute careful analysis for mindless abuse.
The scheme for reporting damage caused by drugs is ramshackle and ineffective. Only 10 per cent. or less of adverse reactions are reported by doctors, and, according to Dr. Inman, who was the chief medical officer on the Committee on Safety of Medicines,
 Very few spontaneous reports are received of congenital abnormalities which might be associated with maternal drug exposure.
Yet these grossly inadequate reports provide the Committee on the Safety of Medicines with no less than 70 per cent. of its information about drugs. This failure of doctors to report means that the Committee on Safety of Medicines is relying heavily on inadequate data while making crucial decisions. It is thereby allowing drugs to remain available, with no information concerning 90 per cent. of adverse reactions.
The whole purpose of the yellow card system of adverse reactions is to alert the medical profession to drugs that may damage those who take them. Ministers have admitted that these reports of adverse reactions have never yet given the first danger signals for any drug. They merely provide confirmation of warnings obtained elsewhere. Confirmation is useful, but it is not as important as the first danger signals. These first danger signals have in the past come too late and after


there has been unnecessary damage. That is regrettable.
The system fails abjectly to protect the public. The Government have failed too, because after a year in office they have made virtually no progress in strengthening or complementing the yellow card system. For years, various schemes to monitor the effects of drugs on patients have been discussed. They have become less substantial as the negotiations have proceeded, and as the years have passed. Currently, we are left with the retrospective assessment of drugs scheme, commonly called RADS. Under this scheme all patients taking a new drug would be identified by special prescriptions, and this clinical progress would be monitored. It is a useful scheme, but the current proposal is to monitor in this way only one new drug a year, and even that limited proposal has apparently made no further progress since it was first given approval nearly a year ago by the General Medical Services Committee. I do not know the reason for the hold-up, but there is an interminable delay.
Instead of improving the system, the Secretary of State, in his " fairground " speech to the pharmaceutical industry, has announced proposals to introduce major changes in the system for giving approval to pharmaceutical firms wishing to launch clinical trials of new compounds. Apparently—and I have to quote the press release in the absence of a ministerial statement—although some aspects, not specified, are to be tightened up, the proposed changes will make it markedly easier for firms to carry out clinical trials than it has been in recent years.
If we are to have more drugs on clinical trials under what the Minister has called a " negative clearance scheme", and if there is no improvement in the reporting of adverse reactions, the problem will become more difficult. If the case for a new and improved system of checking adverse reactions was strong before—and I believe that it was—it will be stronger still when the Minister implements the plans that he has anounced to the pharmaceutical industry.
We need a strong, vigorous, independent surveillance agency assessing drugs and reporting to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. This could start

with the RADS scheme, but, if it is to be effective, rapid expansion and the development of a more ambitious scheme are essential.
It is against that background that I want to take a brief look at Debendox. This is a drug—almost certainly the only one—which is approved by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Yet it has been found by the unanimous verdict of a jury in a court of law to cause deformities. That verdict cannot be lightly dismissed.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines has paid lip service to the court verdict and said that it took " due note ", but it has been forced to admit, in response to parliamentary questions, that it had sent for a transcript of the trial only after it pronounced that there was no evidence against the drug. Had the committee bothered to read the transcript before, it would have seen the evidence of Dr. McBride, the distinguished Australian who first discovered the link between thalidomide and deformity. He did not claim that Debendox was a thalidomide—nor do I—but he stated quite categorically that Debendox was a low trade teratogen which can cause deformities, especially limb reductions.
The committee would also have seen the evidence of the American pharmacologist, Dr. Palmer, who analysed the original notebooks used in the drug company's animal studies and found that
 the animal data absolutely contra-indicates its (Debendox's) use in humans until further experimentation is performed.
It would be understandable if the Committee on Safety of Medicines decided to disagree with both these witnesses and others at that trial. It is incredible that it did not even consider such expert testimony.
But it is not only the medical evidence that is crucial. The epidemiological validity of the surveys of women who have taken Debendox is also important. An American epidemiologist, Dr. Manard, has prepared a report for Congressman Don Edwards, in which she criticises the existing surveys, partly because they suffer from poor selection of controls which biases the results. But the most important point that she made is that all of the studies are too small to show


whether there is an unacceptable risk of Debendox being a low grade teratogen.
No one would suggest that the surveys should seek to detect risks as high as one in a million, or even one in 100,000. But the remarkable fact elicited from parliamentary questions is that the surveys on which the Committee on Safety of Medicines has relied could not even detect risks as high as one in 100. That admission by the Minister for Health torpedoes the credibility of the committee's assurance. We can now understand its carefully negative phrasing that it found no evidence that Debendox caused malformation. It appears that it also has no evidence of its relative safety. It is as if it has been trawling for piranha fish with a whale net.
Let me remind the House that Debendox is a drug taken by millions of women—3½ million in Britain, and 30 million world wide. If there is a risk of damage as low as one in 1,000 that means that 30,000 damaged babies are in existence. If the risk is one in 100, there could be 30,000 damaged babies.
Debendox is causing concern because the American court found that it caused malformations and because the committee has not studied all the disturbing evidence at that trial. In view of the considerable public and scientific interest, the committee should be asked to produce a detailed report explaining why it continues to approve Debendox. It should respond to expert witnesses who have criticised the drug. It should also specify what degree of safety it believes to be attached to the use of the drug.
Some people ask me " Why raise this issue of Debendox when it causes worry to pregnant women who have taken the drug? " That is a very dangerous line of argument to use. If we accept it, we would never take off the market any drug taken by pregnant women, because there are always pregnant women. We would never have got rid of thalidomide if we had accepted that argument. Of course peace of mind is important, but it is far more important to ensure that every precaution is taken to ensure perfectly formed babies.
The Secretary of State has made his announcement to the pharmaceutical industry, assuring it of his anxiety to help. What we now need is a similar statement to the women, assuring them that immediate steps will be taken to improve the

post-marketing surveillance of drugs to avoid unnecessary malformation. To economise on that is false economy. The approximate cost for each severely disable child is £125,000, but we are far more concerned to prevent the recurring human tragedy of lifelong disability. I urge the Minister to take account of that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): This is an issue which commands wide public interest and it is right that it should be debated at intervals in the House. I am not one of those who argue that such matters are best left entirely to the scientific community and to academic debate. Hon. Members and the media can serve a valuable role when they ventilate problems in this complex area. They can also act as a constant reminder to Ministers and their scientific advisers that, while proper regard to the legal procedures and to scientific principles is essential, in the final analysis it is the protection of the patient which is the real objective.
It would be regrettable, however, if the subject were to be clouded by emotion or personal feelings. The safety of drugs is not really a political issue. Ministers of both parties have looked to the Committee on Safety of Medicines for impartial expert advice. The interest of the press in the question is of course somewhat different and is not exclusively concerned with the safety of patients.
I think it only right to say that up till now the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has commanded the respect of both sides of the House for the indomitable campaigns that he has waged on behalf of minority groups who believe that they have a genuine grievance which has not been dealt with adequately. It is also a tribute to him that on most occasions he has not tempered his activities to suit the changes in political fortune; he has pressed his point with equal vigour whatever the political allegiances of the Ministers of the day.
However, I regret the right hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. Friend and I hope that on reflection he will reconsider that section of his speech and agree that it did not live up to the high standards that we expect of the right hon. Gentleman. I also found some sections of his speech unnecessarily alarmist.
I should like to utter a note of caution which I hope the right hon. Member will accept is spoken in sorrow rather than in anger. He must never come to feel that he has a monopoly of compassion for the unfortunates and handicapped of our society. Ministers, their officials and many independent scientific advisers are equally concerned about the welfare of the community and individuals within it.
I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he need not for a moment doubt the good intentions of those who have the difficult job of deciding on matters relating to drug safety, or that they would shrink from taking an unpopular decision if they felt it to be right.
There are some on the fringes of drug safety whose good intentions I do doubt. Foreign lawyers tour this country like, as one magazine recently put it,
 a band of septic poltergeists who hover around beds of adversity to make a good living ".
No more attractive are those who engage in what an article called recently " trial by media". Such people bear a heavy responsibility for the fears, false hopes and revived memories of old sufferings which they conjure up.
I turn to the question of Debendox. If I use strong words, it is because I feel strongly about this subject. The fact is that the system of evaluating the safety of drugs licensed in this country is among the best in the world and, some would agree, is the best. The Committee on Safety of Medicines comprises some of the most eminent men in their particular specialities. They are an invaluable source of informed, impartial and independent advice. To suggest that the Health Minister of this country should act in response to scaremongering or the verdict of a lay jury in the United States, rather than on the advice of expert committees, is to align oneself with a movement which is at heart anti-science, anti-progress, anti-medicine and anti the welfare of the people of this country.
The important thing to remember is that the committee is there to advise on the scientific data. It would be inappropriate for the committee to depend on other people's opinion on the data, such as those expressed in the court case on Debendox in the United States as the

right hon. Gentleman has suggested on many occasions recently that it should. If there had been any new scientific evidence produced at that trial, the committee would naturally have wanted to consider it before reaching a view on the drug. There were, however, good reasons for believing that that was not the case, and this has been borne out by a review by the secretariat of the CSM of the complete transcript.
Moreover, apart from the fact that it was itself highly ambiguous and interpreted differently by the parties to the case, I can see no force whatever in suggesting that a verdict by six laymen in the United States should influence decisions on drug safety in this country. The CSM is perfectly competent to reach its own judgment on the data.
I cannot myself see what else is required over and above what the chairman of the CSM, Sir Eric Scowen, stated in his letter to my right hon. Friend who has related Sir Eric's letter to the press. Sir Eric points out that the CSM has studied the evidence and, in its professional judgment, it proves no reason for taking the drug off the market.
The controversy surrounding Debendox has, however, had one beneficial result in bringing out into the open the difficulties of establishing the risks attaching to the use of drugs after they are on the market. These difficulties are particularly acute in the case of drugs used in pregnancy and were summarised in what I thought was an excellent article on the safety of drugs in pregnancy by Dr. Tony Smith in The Times of 9 April. He said:
 Surely, nearly 20 years after thalidomide, drugs prescribed to pregnant women should have been properly tested to guarantee their safety ".
But, he went on,
 in practice no such complete reassurance is possible ".
He then set out cogent arguments why this was the case. I therefore sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's concern over Debendox, and understand the emotions that lie behind the call for the banning of the drug. He must, however, realise that, as Dr. Smith has explained, in the real world it is just not possible to give him or expectant mothers the absolute assurances he and they seek.
On the other hand, we probably know more about this drug than any other


which might be used for vomiting in pregnancy, and what we know is reassuring—that is, that all the research that has been carried out suggests that a woman who takes Debendox is no more likely to put her unborn child at risk than a mother who does not. That is also the view of the Australian drug regulatory authority.
It would be a tragedy if the campaign against the drug forced doctors into prescribing less well tested drugs or persuaded expectant mothers who suffered from severe vomiting not to take medicines prescribed by their doctors as there is some evidence to suggest that the condition itself, if untreated, is a cause of malformations in babies.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, however, there is one area of drug safety to which he has drawn attention tonight where we ought to look for improvement. The pharmaceutical companies devote very substantial resources to testing drugs in animals and in carefully controlled trials in man before they are marketed. This ensures that an enormous amount is known about the effects of a drug before it is licensed for marketing. This cannot mean that the new drugs are completely free from the risk of adverse effects. Given the potency of modern drugs, wherein lies their efficacy, that is an impossible dream. We cannot have the benefit without a degree of risk.
Despite all these precautions, however, there remains a possibility of adverse effects coming to light after a drug has been on the market for some time. It is clearly important that the time lapse should be reduced to the minimum. To try to meet this need, and to supplement the long-standing yellow card system, the CSM has put forward proposals for pilot studies to test two new systems known as retrospective assessment of drug safety—RADS for short—and record linkage. These proposals are at present under careful consideration.
I am entirely in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman that improvements are desirable in the procedures for monitoring the effects of drugs on patients. It is not, however, simply a question of pouring in money, providing more facilities, or setting up new independent organisations to produce instant results. These are highly complex matters having substantial resource implications.
If the right decisions are to be made, which may settle the system of monitoring drugs in this country for years to come, I and my right hon. Friend will need time to consider carefully all the issues involved and ensure that we obtain best value for money. I can assure the right hon. Member, however, that we will make a statement on our proposals just as soon as we possibly can.
May I say a word or two about the risk/benefit ratio? The first thing that must be understood in considering the safety of modern drugs is that there can be no absolute guarantee of safety. No one can give the patient a guarantee that if he takes any particular drug he will not suffer from some adverse side effect. The balancing of risks against the benefits lies at the core of decisions on the safety of drugs. It is what a doctor must consider before prescribing a drug for a patient and what the CSM must consider before advising that a new drug should be licensed.
The risk, therefore, is not in itself a reason for banning a drug. The question has in every case to be decided on the basis of professional judgment, and a layman should venture on to this ground only if he has some exceptionally good reason or new information that he feels is not available to others. In other cases he can do far more harm than good.
In conclusion, I stress again the need for a rational and unemotional approach to drugs. This applies to the value of new products, which might be hailed as " wonder drugs " or " miracle cures ", as much as to those drugs which it is currently fashionable to denigrate. This House, the media, the pharmaceutical industry and the professions carry a serious responsibility to ensure that the public accepts that modern drugs inevitably have risks as well as benefits, and that complete safety is attainable only at a cost which most of us would regard as unacceptable—that is, turning our backs on progress. I am sure that is not what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve by this debate or his other actions, and if he comes to accept the points that I have been making tonight this debate will have been well worth while.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Two o'clock.